Jan Zalasiewicz, Professor of Palaeobiology, University of Leicester and Mark Williams, Professor of Palaeobiology, University of Leicester
Our deficiencies have always driven us, even among our distant ancestors, back in the last Ice Age. Having neither the speed and strength to hunt large prey, nor sharp teeth and claws to tear flesh, we improvised spears, flint knives, scrapers. Lacking a thick pelt, we took the fur of other animals. As the ice receded, we devised more means of survival and comfort – stone dwellings, ploughs, wheeled vehicles. All these inventions allowed small oases of civilisation to be wrested from a natural wilderness that seemed endless.
The idea of a natural world that dwarfed humanity and its creations long persisted, even into modern times – only to run, lately, into concerns that climate was changing, and species were dying through our actions. How could that be, with us so small, and nature so large?
Now a new study in Nature by a team of scientists from the Weizmann Institute in Israel upends that perspective. Our constructions have now – indeed, spookily, just this year – attained the same mass as that of all living organisms on Earth. The human enterprise is growing fast, too, while nature keeps shrinking. The science-fiction scenario of an engineered planet is already here.
It seems a simple comparison, and yet is fiendishly difficult in practice. But this team has practice in dealing with such impossible challenges. A couple of years ago they worked out the first part of the equation, the mass of all life on Earth – including that of all the fish in the sea, microbes in the soil, trees on land, birds in the air and much more besides. Earth’s biosphere now weighs a little less than 1.2 trillion tonnes (of dry mass, not counting water), trees on land making up most of it. It was something like double that before humans started clearing forests – and it is still diminishing.
Heavyweight Victoria Palacio, Unsplash
Now, the team has delved into the statistics of industrial production and mass flows of all kinds, and reconstructed the growth, from the beginning of the 20th century, of what they call “anthropogenic mass”. This is all the things we build – houses, cars, roads, aeroplanes and myriad other things. The pattern they found was strikingly different. The stuff we build totted up to something like 35 billion tonnes in the year 1900, rising to be roughly double that by the middle of the 20th century. Then, that burst of prosperity after the second world war, termed the Great Acceleration, and our stuff increased several-fold to a little over half a trillion tonnes by the end of the century. In the past 20 years it has doubled again, to be equivalent to, this year, the mass of all living things. In coming years, the living world will be far outweighed – threefold by 2040, they say, if current trends hold.
Most of the weight is in concrete. Taylor Smith / Unsplash
What is this stuff that we make? It is now of extraordinary, and exploding, diversity. The number of “technospecies” now far exceeds the estimated 9 million biological species on Earth, and counting them exceeds even the formidable calculating powers of this team. But our stuff can be broken down into ingredients, of which concrete and aggregates take a gargantuan share – about four-fifths. Then come bricks, asphalt and metals. On this scale, plastics are a minor ingredient – and yet their mass is still greater, now, than that of all animals on Earth.
It’s a revealing, meticulous study, and nicely clear about what the measurements include and exclude. They do not include, for instance, the rock and earth bulldozed and landscaped as foundations for our constructions, nor all of the waste rock generated in mining the ingredients: currently, nearly a third of a trillion tonnes of such material is shifted each year. Add in the Earth material that we use and abuse in other ways, in ploughing farmland, and letting sediment pile up behind dams, and humans have cumulatively used and discarded some 30 trillion tonnes of Earth’s various resources.
Whichever way that you cut the cake, the team’s final point in its groundbreaking study hits home, and chimes with that of another recent analysis we both worked on. Since the mid-20th century, the Earth has been set on a new, human-driven trajectory – one that is leaving the stable conditions of the Holocene Epoch, and is entering the uncertain, and rapidly changing, new world of the Anthropocene. The weight of evidence, here, seems unarguable.
The Charles Telfair Centre is non-profit, independent and non-partisan, and takes no specific position. All opinions are those of the authors/contributors only.
Proceedings of Charles Telfair Centre Launch Panel Discussion – 25th November 2020
A crowd of over 120 gathered on Wednesday 25th November to celebrate the launch of the Charles Telfair Centre – the new Charles Telfair Campus Think Tank initiative. To kick start our activities, we brought together a panel of experts and practitioners to share on the theme: Food and Energy Resilience in a COVID landscape. The crowd of guests included actors and decision-makers from the private sector, NGOs, parastatal bodies, academia as well as representatives of international development organisations. A first success for the Centre: bringing together in the same room the various social, economic and political actors of the country. It is through this diversity that the Centre ambitions to advance ideas and debates.
Jacqueline Sauzier, Secretary-General of the Mauritius Chamber of Agriculture, Mickaël Apaya, Sustainable Development and Inclusive Growth Manager at Business Mauritius and Jaime de Melo Emeritus Professor of the University of Geneva unpacked the achievements, challenges and ways forward for Mauritius in building greater food and energy resilience (see the fact sheet prepared by the Charles Telfair Centre on food and energy resilience in Mauritius).
Food Resilience in Mauritius – Jacqueline Sauzier
In 2019, Mauritius’ agriculture self-sufficiency was estimated to be around 30% with more than 70% of the country’s food imports in products for which the country had either no local production or that were used for agro-processing (detailed data is available on Jacqueline’s Sauzier’s presentation here). In 2019, Mauritius was 95% self-sufficient in meeting local vegetable consumption.
Jacqueline Sauzier presenting on Food resilience in Mauritius
Fruit and Vegetable Sector
Yet, the fruit and vegetable sector has been in decline for the last 10 years both in terms of area harvested and production volume, combined with what appears to be declining productivity (decline in volume produced per hectare harvested). With artisanal production practices dominating non-sugar vegetable and fruit crop, a lack of understanding of the respective roles of the multiple stakeholders within the value chain on the part of small planters (who represent 80% of fruit and vegetable production), uneven action and limited storage capacity, the sector exhibits inefficiencies in the production, storage and distribution of fruit and vegetable crop.
To build a more resilience fruit and vegetable sector, Jacqueline Sauzier argued for improved processes through proper planning, diversified varieties, innovative practices and value chain creation, together with, improved storage facilities to ensure that surplus production could substitute imports for fresh fruits and vegetables. She also called for consumers to be better informed on alternative food consumption habits towards healthier and locally sourced products.
Fruit and Vegetable Sector in Mauritius: key trends, challenges and recommendations for greater Resilience Source: Charles Telfair Centre adaptation of Jacqueline Sauzier, Charles Telfair Centre Launch Panel presentation, 25th November 2020
Sugar Sector
The presentation also probed the difficulties faced by the sugar sector since the dismantling of the sugar protocol and the associated loss of preferential pricing which was initiated in 2009 and took effect in 2015 following a six-year transition period. The last twenty have seen a steady decline in the production volume of cane and rising costs of inputs. In 2018 the sector made losses of more than MUR 1,500. Only Refineries and Independent Power Producers’ activities (such as biomass) were able to generate positive revenues.
Jacqueline Sauzier called for greater recognition of the importance of the sugar sector whose economic contribution would rise from 15% to 30% if indirect activities were accounted for. She highlighted the importance of initiatives to help its survival, notably by reducing labour costs through a revision of the current sugar labour agreement and the introduction work permits for seasonal migrant workers. Biomass being a subsector with great potential not just for the sugar sector but also in meeting the country’s energy transition goals and overall resilience, Jacqueline Sauzier suggested the implementation of the Biomass framework as presented in the 2019-20 budget.
Sugar Sector in Mauritius: key trends, challenges and recommendations for sustainability Source: Charles Telfair Centre adaptation of Jacqueline Sauzier, Charles Telfair Centre Launch Panel presentation, 25th November 2020
For Jacqueline Sauzier, a more resilient food sector calls for strengthening local capacities, capabilities and efficiencies in the fruit and vegetable sector and new solutions to preserve the sugar industry notably through an improved Biomass framework. Her full presentation is accessible here.
Energy Resilience in Mauritius – Mickaël Apaya
Jacqueline Sauzier’s case for a Biomass framework was a great transition to Mickaël Apaya’s presentation on energy resilience in Mauritius. Presenting the Mauritius energy landscape, Mickaël Apaya exposed the country’s high import dependency (87.2%) in fossil fuel energy sources and the, hence, relatively small size of renewable energy source. Yet, by 2030, the country aims to have 40 per cent of its electricity produced by renewables compared to around 20% today. Currently, transport is the sector that consumes the most energy, but it is electricity that generates the largest CO2 emissions (59% of total Mauritius’ emissions).
Mickael Apaya presenting on Energy Resilience in Mauritius
Toward lower energy CO2 emissions and energy intensity of GDP
Using the KAYA equation, he called for a clearer roadmap to meeting our 40% target of renewable energy through both reduced energy CO2 emissions and reduced energy intensity of GDP. To achieve these, he recommended an improved regulatory framework combined with a precise implementable Bioelectricity Strategy throughthrough the development of local biomass energy sources. He recommended, among other things, the decentralised management of production, i.e. the democratisation of production and consumption with smart micro-grid systems. Similarly, he called for energy sobriety (i.e. seeking economic solutions that consume less energy), better energy demand management towards greener consumption and production processes for individuals and industries, the promotion of carbon-light circular economies and favouring low-tech solutions.
For Mickaël Apaya, a more resilient energy sector in Mauritius implies a drastic transition to locally sourced renewable energies within a democratic strategy that involves everyone, from consumer to producer via regulators into a dialogue towards the development of a green long-term economic development plan. His full presentation is available here.
Source: Charles Telfair Centre adaptation of Mickael Apaya, Charles Telfair Centre Launch Panel presentation, 25th November 2020
Resilience beyond Self-sufficiency – Jaime de Melo
Jaime de Melo reminded the audience that the country’s past resilience was built, among other things, on particularly favourable international trade terms, notably through the Sugar Protocol and the Multi-Fibre Agreement. The country also pursued efficient fiscal policies and established early on an export processing zone. These policies and favourable terms allowed Mauritius to accumulate rents which the country judiciously reinvested in developing new pillars such as Tourism, Textile, and later Global Business and Finance. Yet, the drop in sugar production and revenues, as displayed in Jacqueline Sauzier’s presentation, simply reflects the true or natural comparative advantage of Mauritius’ sugar sector. From an economist’s perspective, the data clearly suggests that Mauritius has lost some if its “competitive” advantage in raw sugar exports (and in textile and clothing) with the end of quotas and preferential pricing.
Jaime de Melo discussing avenues for greater resilience in Mauritius
Bioethical Food Products
Looking more closely at the Mauritius agricultural sector and its import dependency, Jaime de Melo argued that self-sufficiency should not be an end in itself for building resilience, especially for a globally dependent small-island economy like Mauritius. The country should resist temptation to protectionist measures against imports, , even temporarily, as these are difficult to remove later on. The real question for building food resilience in Mauritius, he argued, is whether we should rethink the production mix of the sector towards bioethical food products. Hence, a first step would be to measure the ecological footprint of the Mauritius agricultural sector and then explore policies that would help build competitive bioethical agricultural activities. Such a shift towards a more bioethical agricultural mix would be beneficial both on health grounds and for projecting an image of more sustainable tourism.
Mauritius Food and Energy Resilience as a globally dependent small-island economy; some avenues. Source: Charles Telfair Centre adaptation of Jaime de Melo, Charles Telfair Centre Launch Panel presentation, 25th November 2020
Renewable Energies: solar and wind
On the energy side, the transition towards renewable energy is key to building greater resilience in Mauritius, but the key question is how to get the societal support to decarbonise the economy and reach our CO2 emissions targets. Now that renewables, especially solar are becoming a cheaper source of energy, it is time to plan for a transition towards green energy. Guided by proper expertise, this should be cost-effective in Mauritius given its natural advantages.
For Jaime de Melo, greater resilience in energy and food system in Mauritius will be achieved by building a competitive bioethical agricultural sector and a competitive renewable energy sector. Fiscal incentives (tariffs on pesticides, carbon tax, green subsidies), energy resale network, among others, will be needed to achieve these goals. Because the transition away from fossil fuels takes time, a regulatory framework announcing the progressive shift away from fossil fuels along a pre-announced path is crucial.
Questions and answers with the audience
Questions raised during Q&A with panel and audience Source: Charles Telfair Centre transcription of questions and answers session, Charles Telfair Centre Launch Panel discussion, 25 November 2020.
New technologies?
During the Q&A, the audience highlighted the many remaining questions and issues pending. What explains our dependency on imports in products such as fish and fruits, and what can be done about it? What new technologies are available to support the development of smarter and greener agriculture? Jacqueline Sauzier noted that there are regional collaborations & collaboration with international experts to explore smart agricultural solutions, but she highlighted that these solutions have costs which at this stage would not make these products price competitive vis a vis imports. The question on how to bring these innovations and be cost-efficient remained unanswered.
A new generation of Agri-entrepreneurs?
Further questions were asked on how to motivate a new generation of young agri-entrepreneurs and move beyond the self-sufficiency argument towards the development of profitable activities for which self-sufficiency simply becomes a by-product. Who can support agri-entrepreneurs in choosing its production mix? Who can guide them in how to export? What research is being undertaken to identify relevant crops for Mauritius?
Multi-stakeholders dialogue?
To the question of how to operationalise an efficient public/private dialogue for the application of effective policies and regulatory frameworks, there was a call for building competencies to bridge the dialogue between the private and public sector in the same way it was done during the sugar reform. Some guests noted that private-public partnership had been a key component of Mauritius past success and thus needed to continue to be part of future solutions by also bringing into the discussion academia and civil society. Whether this dialogue should be led by the government or, others such as academia, was left as an open question.
Regional solutions?
Discussions on food security also pointed out that the issue is not one of local production but of affordability for which Mauritius has an advantage. Hence, the country could look for regional African sourcing/investments in agricultural products which may make more economic sense than self-sufficiency for a small island economy such as Mauritius.
Technical & Regional solutions to renewable energies?
On the energy front, questions were raised on the specific technical solutions to a successful energy transition. Mickaël Apaya highlighted the importance of making the right energy mix choice now because these require heavy investments that are not easily reversible.
It was also suggested that Mauritius together with other small States should make a case for subsidies on the global front in order to push the development of renewable energies.
Other pending questions from the discussions included: How to better manage our land? What future for the sugar and bagasse industry? What specific fiscal incentive mix?
Overall, there was a strong call from the audience to work on specific practical and operational solutions which would be adapted to a small island economy such as Mauritius.
All these questions are avenues for the Centre to explore in future articles and events. Our future work on food and energy resilience has been cut out.
The Charles Telfair Centre is non-profit, independent and non-partisan, and takes no specific position. All opinions are those of the authors/contributors only.
On many beaches around the Indian Ocean, keen observers may spot bits of broken pottery. Washed smooth by the ocean, these shards are in all likelihood hundreds of years old, from centres of ceramic production like the Middle Eastern Abbasid caliphate and the Chinese Ming dynasty.
Originally destined for Indian Ocean port cities, this pottery would have been purchased by merchant elites accustomed to eating off fine plates. These traders formed part of vast commercial networks that crisscrossed the Indian Ocean arena and beyond, from East Africa to Indonesia, the Middle East and China.
These trade networks stretched back thousands of years, powered by the monsoon winds. Reversing direction in different seasons, these winds have long shaped the rhythm of life around the ocean, bringing rain to farmers, filling the sails of dhows and enabling trade between different ecological zones.
The monsoon wind pattern makes the Indian Ocean relatively easy to cross both ways. In the Atlantic, by contrast, winds blow in one direction all year round. That’s why the Indian Ocean is the world’s oldest long-distance trans-oceanic trading arena, and is sometimes known as the cradle of globalisation.
This cosmopolitan world has long fascinated scholars and has become a vibrant domain of research. Yet this work has had little to say about the sea itself. Its focus is on human movement with the ocean as a passive backdrop. In the age of rising sea levels and climate change, it’s important to learn more about the sea from a material and ecological point of view.
Over the past few years, this situation has started to shift. In this article we survey both the older and the newer forms of Indian Ocean studies, of surface and depth.
Surface histories of the Indian Ocean
Given the long millennia of trade and exchange, one key concern of Indian Ocean studies has been a focus on cultural interaction. Cities on the shores have sustained deep forms of material, intellectual and cultural exchange, so that the denizens of these ports had more in common with each other than with their fellows inland.
This early cosmopolitan world has famously been explored in Amitav Ghosh’s In an Antique Land, which traces the travels of Abram bin Yiju, a 12th century Jewish Tunisian merchant based in Cairo and later in Mangalore, India. The book contrasts the rigidity of borders in the 1980s with the relative ease of movement in the late medieval Indian Ocean.
The Swahili coast provides another famed example of Indian Ocean cosmopolitanism. Stretching a thousand miles from Somalia to Mozambique, Swahili society arose from centuries of interaction between Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Centred on coastal city states like Kilwa, Zanzibar and Lamu, Swahili trade networks reached far inland to present day Zimbabwe and outward to Persia, India and China. After reaching their height from the 12th to the 15th centuries, these city states were eventually undone by the Portuguese, who arrived from the early 16th century, seeking to establish a monopoly of the spice trade.
Fishermen, Zanzibar, Tanzania –
Central to these histories of mobility and exchange in the Indian Ocean has been the spread of Islam across land and sea from the 7th century CE. By the 14th century, mercantile networks around the Indian Ocean were almost entirely in the hands of Muslim traders.
In their wake came scholars, theologians, pilgrims, clerks, legal pundits and Sufi divines. Together, these groups created a shared economic, spiritual and legal frameworks. Sufism, a mystical form of Islam is an important strand in the Indian Ocean histories, as is the centrifugal power of the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca.
European Colonisation along the Indian Ocean
When the Portuguese rounded the Cape in the late 15th century, they entered what many have termed a Muslim Lake, dominated in the north by the Turkish Ottoman, Persian Safavid and Indian Mughal empires. When the Dutch arrived in the Indian Ocean in the 17th century, “they were able to go from one end of it to another by carrying letters of introduction from Muslim sultans on various shores”.
As Engseng Ho has indicated, these sprawling networks of Muslim commerce operated without the backing of an army or a state.
Early European entrants to the Indian Ocean world initially had to adapt to the trading orders that they encountered. But by the 19th century, European empires dominated. Their military, transport and communication infrastructure intensified the movement of people across the Indian Ocean world.
As Clare Anderson has demonstrated, much of this mobility was forced and conscripted. It involved slaves, indentured labourers, political exiles and prisoners who were transported between regions. At times, these systems built on existing foundations of labour exploitation. As recent research indicates, South Asian indentured labour was often taken from regions in India where slavery existed. Old and new systems of unfree labour produced an archipelago of prisons, plantations and penal colonies.
As an archive, the Indian Ocean provides a new way of looking at world history, that has previously been dominated by European accounts. The age of European empires is only one tiny sliver of time in a much longer arc. A view from the Indian Ocean unsettles ideas of the relationship between European colonisers and colonised groups.
As historians like Engseng Ho and Sugata Bose have argued, the Indian Ocean world was an arena of competing claims.
The ambitions of British imperialism, for example, were countered by the equally grand visions of Islam. Indeed, the Indian Ocean arena produced a rich repertoire of transoceanic ideologies, including Hindu reformism and pan-Buddhism.
Such ideologies eventually acquired an anti-imperial character which also fed into ideas of Afro-Asian solidarity and non-alignment. These arose from the Bandung Conference in 1955 at which 29 newly independent nations gathered to forge a new path rather than falling in line with either of the rival camps in the emerging Cold War.
The Belt Road Initiative, Source: The World Bank, The Belt and Road Initiative, 2020.
In the 21st century, these older alliances have come under pressure as China and India elbow each other for dominance in the Indian Ocean. China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative involves massive transport and port infrastructure and aims to extend China’s footprint across much of the Indian Ocean arena. In response, New Delhi has bolstered its economic and military activity in this domain.
Deep histories of the Indian Ocean
While the uniquely well-travelled surface of the Indian Ocean has received much attention, its depths barely register in the cultural or historical imagination. Its waters constitute nearly 20% of the ocean’s total volume, and its deepest point, the Sunda Deep of the Java Trench, lies nearly 8km below the surface. Yet its seafloor, like much of the world’s oceans, is largely unmapped.
Seafloor features determine weather patterns, fish concentrations and tsunami dynamics. Initial explorations by mining companies revealed mineral-rich deposits on submarine volcanic vents, while new species are continually being discovered.
The deep Indian Ocean is far less studied than the depths of the other oceans, for economic reasons: it is ringed by underdeveloped countries. The second International Indian Ocean Expedition was launched only in 2015, fifty years after the first. It aims to increase understanding about the oceanographic and biological characteristics of this undersampled ocean, as well as the ways in which it is changing.
Coral Reef in Maldives, Ursula Krapf on Unsplash.
Paying attention to the submarine world is becoming increasingly important in a time of climate change prompted by human activities. The Indian Ocean is warming faster than any of the other oceans, holding more than 70% of all the heat absorbed by the upper ocean since 2003. Indian Ocean islands – the Maldives being a well-known example – are already being submerged by rising global sea levels.
Cyclone patterns are shifting further south and happening more often as a result of the ocean’s rising temperature. The monsoon, which underpinned the Indian Ocean’s shipping networks and the rainfall patterns on its coastlines, is losing its power and predictability.
Deities, spirits and ancestors
While the Indian Ocean’s depths are in many ways opaque, they are not unpopulated in people’s imaginations. The ocean bustles with water deities, djinns, mermaids and ancestral spirits – a mythical submarine world that reflects the cosmopolitanism of its land populations.
In southern Africa this mix is especially rich: Khoisan/ First Nation water sprites, Muslim djinns introduced by South East Asian slaves, African ancestors, one of whose domains is the ocean, and British imperial ideas about the romance of the sea.
These ideas encounter each other and turn bodies of water into rich sites of memory and history. They have been explored by the Oceanic Humanities for the Global South project. Work by Confidence Joseph, Oupa Sibeko, Mapule Mohulatsi and Ryan Poinasamy explores the literary and artistic imaginations of southern Africa’s creolised waters.
Afrofuturist science fiction is also turning to the deep Indian Ocean. Mohale Mashigo’s Floating Rugs is situated in a submarine community on South Africa’s east coast. Mia Couto’s stories from the Mozambican coastline have long paired myths of mermaids with marine biology. Yvonne Adhiambo Owuor’s novel The Dragonfly Sea links contemporary Afro-Asian networks to the undersea.
Deep sea mining
Some exploration of the deep ocean can seem science-fictional, but isn’t.
The International Seabed Authority, a branch of the United Nations in operation since 2001 and responsible for parcelling out potential marine mining areas, has granted contracts for mining exploration in the Indian Ocean. At the same time, researchers are discovering an astonishing number of new deep ocean species on the same sites.
The submarine world has long been plundered for riches. Histories of pearl diving in the Indian Ocean – as in a central scene of Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea – are continued in today’s illegal abalone trade. Poachers on the coast of South Africa don scuba gear to harvest abalone to trade with Asian markets, linking the undersea to Indian Ocean criminal underworlds, along the same lines as the ancient trade networks.
At times these networks are the source of treasure. On the Island of Mozambique, for instance, the shards of blue pottery that were traded around the Indian Ocean are one of the objects of the active treasure hunting trade today. While some of the treasures are sold by dealers in antiquities, others provide crucial evidence for maritime archaeological research. Recently, the Slave Wrecks Project has discovered slave shipwrecks that provide concrete symbols of the transatlantic slave trade and link it to histories of Indian Ocean slavery and indenture.
The old waterfronts of East African port cities like Mombasa, Zanzibar and Lamu are dominated by buildings with a pure white finish. This present-day architecture echoes a centuries-old tradition of building houses, mosques and tombs from white coral stone and dressed with lime plaster. Made from shells and corals that began their life under the sea, this luminous plaster made port cities visible from afar to incoming vessels.
The ocean’s submarine life and its human histories are always entangled. And now writers, artists and scholars are increasingly drawing attention to their connectedness.
The Charles Telfair Centre is non-profit, independent and non-partisan, and takes no specific position. All opinions are those of the authors/contributors only.
Sumant Sinha, Chairman and Managing Director, ReNew Power
Nations need to direct investments towards a green and healthy recovery, as insurance against future disasters. The paper argues that renewable energy can revitalise the economy by creating “green” jobs, ensuring energy security and strengthening resilience. To that effect, Europe has set the early benchmarks for a global green recovery.
Towards a green, equitable and resilient future
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken a devastating toll on lives, livelihoods and economies globally. However, a silver lining to the cloud was that it enabled us to catch glimpses of a better world – cleaner air, blue skies and reduced emissions, besides reinforcing the value of public health.
We are now at a pivotal moment, as national governments design stimulus packages to reboot their economies. We simply cannot afford to return to “business as usual” and continue to pursue a high-carbon, unsustainable growth template. Rather, global recovery measures should target a green, equitable and resilient future.
As nations press the “reset” button, they need to make the right choice and direct investments towards a green and healthy recovery, which is the best insurance against future disasters. The pandemic has only strengthened the case for accelerating the transition to clean energy. As we “build back better” we must be careful not to place sustainability on the back burner, but rather ensure that renewables and other clean technologies are at the heart of rebuilding strategies.
Green job creation and reduced import bills
A low-carbon growth path can stimulate the economy as well as mitigate climate risks. Renewable energy can revitalize the economy by creating “green” jobs, ensuring energy security and strengthening resilience. Each million dollars invested in renewables or energy flexibility could create at least 25 jobs, while each million invested in efficiency would create about 10 jobs. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that transforming energy systems based on renewables could boost global GDP by $98 trillion by 2050, and create 63 million new jobs globally in renewables and energy efficiency. In India, which saw over 100 million job losses during the lockdown, 1.3 million full-time jobs can be created by achieving 160 GW from renewables by 2022.
A shift towards renewables can help countries such as India and China save vital funds through a drastic reduction in their import bills. Even if half the generated renewable power is used to replace imported coal, India can save over $90 billion between 2021 and 2030. As a major source of harmful emissions, coal has always been associated with negative consequences. The fact that renewables are now the cheaper alternative in most countries makes a compelling case for funnelling spending on coal imports towards speeding up adoption of renewables. It is also essential that we cut back on fossil fuel subsidies wherever they are still significantly large, especially with oil prices plunging.
Cleaner air and improved health
The pandemic has brought the need for clean air and health considerations to the forefront. Globally, more than 4 million premature deaths per annum can be attributed to air pollution, while the World Health Organization has identified climate change as a major cause of infectious diseases and spread of antimicrobial resistance, raising the risk of future epidemics.
A recovery driven by renewables can tackle the twin challenges of air pollution and climate change by curbing greenhouse gas emissions, thus reducing vulnerability to life-threatening diseases. Last but not least, a renewables-driven recovery will contribute to more equitable and inclusive growth by improving access to energy. This can dramatically improve living standards in disadvantaged communities – by assuring them of basic amenities like healthcare, food, water.
Europe is leading the way
Traditionally, Europe has led the world in tackling climate change and, not surprisingly, it has once again set the early benchmarks for a global green recovery. Amidst the Trump administration slashing green protections and China sending mixed signals, as evident from its recent investments in coal-fired power plants, the EU has shown positive intent by setting aside 25% of its nearly €850 billion recovery package for building energy-efficient infrastructure; investing in renewables and other clean technology, such as batteries, clean hydrogen and carbon capture; promoting low-carbon mobility and installing 1 million EV charging points; fostering sustainable land use and preserving biodiversity. It is also considering a landmark border tax on carbon-heavy imports from other countries.
It is important that other governments take a leaf out of Europe’s book and adopt a policy and investment response that is geared towards a sustainable and just recovery. We also need other stakeholders to step up: corporates to adopt sustainable and clean business practices; and investors to decarbonize their portfolios and back the renewables sector. Civil society must actively support plans for a green and just recovery by adopting sustainable lifestyles.
It is evident that global recovery plans must be aligned to the vision of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and Agenda 2030, for an equitable, healthy and resilient future. By making energy transition an integral element of the wider recovery plan, nations can build the much needed capacity to absorb shocks from pandemics or similar disruptions. Enhanced cooperation across the global community can help frame a robust action plan and ensure adequate funding for expediting the global green recovery. As we restart our economies, we owe it to our future generations to choose the right path and opt for a low-carbon development model.
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).
Les débats en cours autour de la réintroduction provisoire des néonicotinoïdes – ces insecticides dits « tueurs d’abeilles » – pour la culture de la betterave le montrent une nouvelle fois : en agriculture, l’usage des produits phytosanitaires (« phytos ») fait polémique, et beaucoup de prises de position contraires se cristallisent.
Une grande confusion s’est progressivement installée dans l’esprit de nombreux publics, car si des dangers pour la santé sont régulièrement mis en avant dans les médias par certaines associations et la littérature scientifique, le discours officiel reste de prôner sa confiance dans le système mis en place et souligne qu’il y a peu de véritables problèmes pour la santé.
Dose journalière et limite maximale
D’un point de vue réglementaire, deux indicateurs sont utilisés pour rendre compte de la sécurité des consommateurs.
Il y a tout d’abord la dose journalière admissible (DJA), c’est-à-dire la consommation quotidienne possible d’une substance xénobiotique au cours d’une vie entière sans risque connu pour la santé. Elle est fixée avec une marge de sécurité très importante (facteur de 100 ou 1000) par rapport à la dose sans effet.
Il y a ensuite la limite maximale de résidus (LMR), déterminée de façon à ce que la quantité de résidus d’un pesticide ingérée par une population donnée ne dépasse pas la DJA ; elle est calculée dans un produit agricole de manière à ce qu’un apport journalier maximum théorique des résidus provenant d’un pesticide donné soit inférieur à sa DJA. Comme la LMR dépend des habitudes alimentaires d’un consommateur moyen, elle varie selon les pays et selon les produits. Il y a une LMR pour chaque pesticide et pour chaque production végétale.
La LMR est critiquée pour les pesticides qui sont des perturbateurs endocriniens car pour ceux-ci, il n’y a plus de proportionnalité des effets induits avec la dose. Cette catégorie de pesticide est notamment soupçonnés d’être responsables d’une recrudescence des cas d’infertilité, et d’être un facteur de risque pour plusieurs maladies chroniques non transmissibles.
En outre, il a été montré expérimentalement des effets cocktails entre certains pesticides ; or ces effets ne sont jamais pris en compte pour leur évaluation. Enfin, l’impact possible d’une ingestion de très faibles quantités tout au long d’une vie sur la diversité et le fonctionnement de notre microbiote intestinal, n’est pas considéré alors que de tels effets ont été montrés expérimentalement.
Accumulation, résistance
Les mêmes différences de perception sont observées quant aux effets sur la biodiversité.
Si les pesticides sont toxiques pour les organismes qu’ils ciblent, leur effet manque parfois de spécificité et peut donc impacter aussi d’autres composantes de la biodiversité comme les ennemis naturels des ravageurs des cultures, les bactéries, champignons, oiseaux, mammifères, amphibiens, et poissons.
Les insecticides et les herbicides à large spectre affectent aussi directement et indirectement la faune via la disparition des habitats et la contamination des sources de nourriture. Les pesticides qui tendent à s’accumuler dans la chaîne alimentaire posent également un risque à long terme pour les prédateurs, affaiblissant le potentiel de régulations naturelles. Ceci fragilise la gestion des ravageurs et accroît la dépendance future aux pesticides.
En outre, à l’usage, des résistances aux phytos peuvent apparaître chez les organismes cibles (insectes, micro-organismes ou plantes indésirables), rendant leur usage inopérant.
Trois voies pour évoluer
Dans ces débats complexes, il semble important de tenir compte de la perte de confiance des citoyens envers les sphères politiques et agricoles : malgré des initiatives publiques dédiées à la réduction forte des phytos (plans Ecophyto 1, 2 et 2+), les dernières statistiques montrent un accroissement de leur usage en dix ans.
Enfin, une bataille sémantique brouille le débat : quand certains parlent de « pesticides », d’autres parlent de produits « phytopharmaceutiques » ou produits « phytosanitaires ». Dans la première acception, il est implicite que les produits tuent le vivant, et qu’ils ne sont pas non plus sans danger pour la santé des animaux et des hommes. Dans la seconde, leur utilisation est légitimée au même titre que l’usage des médicaments l’est pour les humains.
Malgré ces différences de perception et de terminologie, il y a un objectif largement partagé de réduire les usages comme les impacts ; cependant trois voies de progrès coexistent. Les deux premières ne remettent pas ou peu en cause les pratiques existantes et considèrent que les plantes sont forcément vulnérables aux bioagresseurs, contrairement à la troisième qui va s’intéresser à leur environnement pour réduire leur vulnérabilité.
Faire mieux… sans viser à changer le système
Les leviers les plus promus par les politiques publiques ne remettent jamais frontalement en cause la structure des systèmes agricoles intensifs et simplifiés (rotations courtes, travail du sol fréquent, absence ou insuffisance d’infrastructures agroécologiques) qui dominent aujourd’hui en France.
Les phytos sont encore utilisés suivant des pratiques d’assurance quasi systématique (traitement des semences indépendamment des besoins réels de protection, par exemple). Au-delà du choix de variétés résistantes, les mesures préventives visant à renforcer la santé des plantes ne sont que très peu mobilisées. Ce système s’appuie implicitement sur l’efficacité des seules solutions curatives que les phytos incarnent.
Deux grandes stratégies de réduction des pesticides chimiques sont à l’œuvre dans ces systèmes simplifiés. La première réside dans l’augmentation de l’efficience des traitements via l’optimisation des apports dans le temps et l’espace grâce aux technologies de l’agriculture de précision. La deuxième est basée sur l’utilisation de substituts organiques ou biologiques aux produits de synthèse (phéromones sexuelles de synthèse pour piéger des insectes, microhyménoptères parasites de nombreux ravageurs, biopesticides). L’innocuité de ces biopesticides reste à démontrer et l’utilisation d’organismes vivants pose le problème de la pérennité de la solution et des possibles effets de diffusions incontrôlées.
Ces deux stratégies permettent effectivement de réduire l’utilisation des pesticides de synthèse, mais elles correspondent à des formes d’agriculture où les pesticides gardent leur fonction de « parapluie » de protection. Dans cette approche, il faut protéger les plantes dont la vulnérabilité est élevée du fait des modes de culture intensifs que l’on ne cherche pas à remettre en question. Cette approche est prônée par ceux qui défendent la possibilité de maintenir une forte capacité d’exportation de denrées agricoles et soulignent le besoin de nourrir une population mondiale croissante par ce seul moyen.
Pour des systèmes agricoles moins vulnérables
Les recherches récentes convergent pour souligner qu’il ne sera possible de diminuer drastiquement les pesticides pour un usage en dernier recours, que si on combine un ensemble de leviers, chacun n’ayant qu’un effet partiel, mais visant, conjointement à renforcer la régulation naturelle des bioagresseurs. Détaillons les trois principaux axes.
Premier axe, une diversité de plantes à l’échelle de la parcelle : succession de cultures et d’intercultures pour réprimer certains bioagresseurs, mélange d’espèces et de variétés résistantes ou tolérantes pour réduire l’amplitude des dégâts, espèces différentes en bordure de parcelle pour favoriser certains ennemis naturels et/ou mieux contrôler certains bioagresseurs. Toutefois, cet axe complexifie la récolte et peut induire le besoin de trier la collecte.
Second axe, un sol en bonne santé : les apports organiques et un travail du sol, limité ou nul, réduisent l’oxydation du sol et favorisent son activité biologique (microorganismes, faune), rendant les plantes moins vulnérables aux bioagresseurs souterrains et aériens. Cela favorise les mycorhizes, champignons filamenteux vivant en symbiose avec la plupart des plantes, qui améliorent l’acquisition de ressources rares (phosphore, eau…) et renforcent la résistance des plantes aux stress biotiques et abiotiques (sécheresse, froid…). Leur développement nécessite cependant une non-perturbation mécanique du sol et des apports modérés de fertilisants, incompatibles avec la « quête des derniers quintaux ».
Troisième axe, une surface réduite pour chaque parcelle combinée à la présence d’infrastructures écologiques (haies, prairies, lisières…) alentour favorisent l’abondance et la diversité les ennemis naturels des bioagresseurs. Cet axe bute toutefois actuellement sur la standardisation et la productivité réalisées à l’aide d’équipements de grand gabarit.
La combinaison de ces trois familles de leviers aboutit à des agro-écosystèmes sièges de nombreuses régulations biologiques dans et au-dessus du sol, porteurs de cultures moins sensibles, et donc plus résilientes. Dans ces conditions, une parcelle peut jouer le rôle d’habitat pour une partie du cycle des espèces auxiliaires (source de nourriture et lieu de ponte) et ainsi être peu voire pas traitée.
Cette stratégie amène aussi à raisonner de manière plus systémique, par exemple en choisissant les couverts intermédiaires en fonction de leur facilité de destruction sans recours à la chimie et pas seulement pour leur facilité d’implantation. Ces régulations peuvent mettre du temps à s’instaurer et vont nécessiter des travaux pour savoir comment en fiabiliser et renforcer les effets.
Ces leviers présentent l’immense mérite de fournir d’autres services à l’agriculture (pollinisation, meilleure efficience de l’eau, fertilité des sols…) ainsi qu’à la société et la planète : régulation du climat par séquestration du carbone, préservation de la biodiversité.
Pour autant, ce ne sont pas les leviers les plus promus par les politiques publiques ni les plus rencontrés dans les exploitations agricoles, car, mal maitrisés, ils peuvent entrer en conflit avec la simplicité et la rentabilité de court terme des exploitations. De fait, ils n’apportent actuellement pas la reconnaissance financière qui justifierait de systématiser leur intégration dans l’évaluation des performances des exploitations.
Une nouvelle approche autour du bien commun
Pour n’utiliser les phytos qu’en dernier recours, comme des médicaments, la conception de la santé des plantes devra se baser sur la résilience des écosystèmes vis-à-vis des bioagressions, via le développement de la biodiversité fonctionnelle bénéfique. Cela devrait être un des tout premiers critères pour juger de la performance des systèmes mis en place.
Cela nécessite également des coordinations entre agriculteurs et acteurs locaux pour diversifier les cultures au sein d’un territoire et gérer les infrastructures agroécologiques. Choisir cette famille de leviers ne relève donc pas du seul libre arbitre de l’agriculteur, mais bien d’une gestion collective du bien commun que constitue cette biodiversité fonctionnelle et les habitats qui la favorisent à l’échelle d’un territoire.L’instauration de pratiques basées sur la biodiversité utile devra être contextualisée en fonction des caractéristiques de sol, de climat et d’histoire culturale de la parcelle. Il y a donc beaucoup moins de « recettes » que pour les voies de protection des cultures basées sur l’amélioration de l’efficience des intrants (chimiques) ou sur leur substitution.
Il faut donc que les marchés évoluent pour proposer des solutions portant à la fois une forme d’universalité et d’adaptation aisée aux situations locales. Cela suppose aussi de fournir un conseil moins normatif aux agriculteurs et le développement de nouveaux dispositifs pour capitaliser et partager les connaissances.
Enfin, si l’on vise le développement de systèmes agricoles moins vulnérables via la gestion d’un bien commun, il sera judicieux que les nouvelles pratiques soient reconnues par un label rémunérateur ou que les services environnementaux rendus à la société soient rémunérés. Cela n’entraînera pas nécessairement de surcoût, car la société paye déjà pour ces services via la dépollution de l’eau ou la prise en charge des dépenses de santé. La moindre productivité actuelle des exploitations qui s’essayent à l’agroécologie peut être soutenue par une demande locale (avantage apporté par une garantie de débouché), une reconnaissance via une labellisation des produits mais aussi des exploitations.
Tant qu’une partie des pesticides restent autorisée, les progrès sur les approches alternatives à la chimie restent timorés. Par ailleurs, on voit mal comment les produits issus d’une agriculture agroécologique pourraient se distinguer de ces mêmes produits issus de l’agriculture conventionnelle si tous finissent dans un même silo ou une même cuve masquant la distinction. Le consentement à payer pour, par exemple, une agriculture « zéro pesticides » ne peut se déployer qu’avec une traçabilité marquée. En effet, pour les fruits par exemple, les systèmes réduisant les pesticides ont généralement un chiffre d’affaires par hectare moins bon qu’en système conventionnel et qu’en agriculture biologique (AB), comme le souligne la figure suivante.
Les résultats du réseau Dephy montrent les systèmes économes en pesticides (ECO) sont actuellement moins rémunérateurs que les systèmes conventionnels (REF) ou sous cahier des charges AB (AB), car on ne tient pas compte des valeurs non marchandes comme les impacts sur la santé, les pollutions évitées et la protection de la biodiversité. Ecophytopic
Cela pose la question de la possible coexistence de trois formes d’agricultures conventionnelle, agroécologique et biologique. Soit les pratiques agroécologiques deviennent les standards du conventionnel (renforcé par une règlementation très ferme sur les pesticides), soit le différentiel entre conduite agroécologique et AB n’est pas suffisant et mène à leur fusion.
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).
For decades, thinking and strategies around food have developed in silos, with little coordination between communities working on nutrition, agriculture, food, environment, water, health, climate, employment, trade or transport. This has generated serious problems – from policies that provide cheap calories but lead to high rates of diet-related diseases, to market innovations that prioritize efficiency above all and production systems that contribute to climate change and biodiversity loss.
The pandemic has shown that sectors that seem distinct do not operate independently. Though still being investigated, COVID-19 likely originated in wild animals sold in open food markets. The virus easily jumped to humans because farmers had cleared and settled large areas of natural habitat, increasing interactions of wildlife with people, including as food. Sanitary standards at markets were poorly regulated, while rapid transport between densely populated cities spread the virus globally. Now whether infected people become seriously ill or die depends on their underlying health and nutrition, as well as their access to healthcare, sanitation and adequate housing. Indeed, COVID-19 is a story of multiple systems impacting each other, triggering a host of unintended consequences impossible to understand, let alone manage, without looking at them together.
Reimagining and re-designing our food systems
Understanding the connections between these seemingly distinct domains is crucial to emerge stronger from the pandemic. Systems thinking – a way of understanding how interdependent structures interact in a dynamic system – can help.
Taking a systems view allows us to tackle complex questions, such as: How can food systems help eliminate diet-related disease? How can we ensure abundant harvests while sustaining natural habitats and healthy ecosystems? How can farmers adapt to and help fight climate change? How can marginalized consumers, workers and producers be empowered? How can we reduce vulnerabilities to future shocks?
Next year, world leaders and experts will convene for the Food Systems Summit of 2021, called for by the United Nations Secretary General, to articulate and adopt an actionable, integrated plan for food systems transformation. Looking ahead to the summit, we need to bring siloed communities together to redesign how we produce, process, distribute, regulate, legislate, research, cook and eat food.
This is ambitious, but we must be bold and think big. Drawing on systems thinking, we propose three initial actions to reimagine and redesign our food systems:
Image: Rockefeller Foundation and EcoAgriculture Partners
1. Re-think supply chains for a diverse and healthy diet. Food choices matter. If all humans shifted their diets to include more fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts, fish and whole grains, we would see substantial reductions in diet-related disease, including heart disease, cancer, diabetes and stroke – many of which increase the risk of serious illness from COVID-19. Yet the global food system isn’t built for diverse, healthy diets: 80% of the world’s food supply is grain and grain-fed livestock, while fruit, vegetables, pulses and fish are expensive and much less accessible.
We must redesign supply chains with nutrition and human health in mind. We can begin by supporting local food systems with shorter, fairer and cleaner supply chains that address local priorities, while configuring national and global trade to promote diversity and reduce supply risks.
2. Build strong connections between environment and food policy. How farmers produce food determines not only the fertility of their soils, but the health of the planet. The food systems of tomorrow must embrace the One Health vision and advance positive interactions between human health, livestock health, wildlife health and ecosystem health. This approach can minimize the spread of disease, ensure adequate water for crop irrigation, reduce destructive flooding and wildfires, and protect farmlands from intense climate events, while also sustaining wild biodiversity and essential forest, grassland and wetland habitats. Farmers should be helped to diversify their incomes and incentivized to farm both productively and as environmental stewards.
In 2021, the global community will develop a new action framework for the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, advance action under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and begin the UN Decade for Ecosystem Restoration. Sustainable food systems must be central to these strategies.
3. Strengthen, democratize and localize food systems planning. To approach food systems transformation holistically, policy-makers must democratize planning and invite all actors working in and alongside food systems – producers, businesses, social and environmental organizations, health workers, farmers, consumers, scientists and policy-makers – to be part of the effort. While national policy-makers can provide critical perspectives and frameworks for change, local and regional stakeholders must be able to shape their own food systems to reflect local values, resources and priorities.
EcoAgriculture Partners, for example, has documented nearly 500 large landscape partnerships in Africa, Latin America, Asia, Europe and the US, whose members are collaborating on long-term food system resilience and sustainable development. We need their perspectives at the upcoming Food Systems Summit.
Moving forward
The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the vulnerabilities and failures of our food systems, and the urgent need to build back better. Visionaries around the world are already leading the way. The Rockefeller Foundation’s Food System Vision Prize received innovative ideas from 1,300 collaborative organizations focused on building food systems that integrate food, environment, health, culture, diets and technology. These ideas prove that we can build resilient food systems that sustain both human health and the health of our planet – and a systems approach will help us get there. We’ll be exploring those ideas during a virtual event on 24 June – we hope you will join us.
Now, we have a choice: to go back to the old “normal,” or to work together and emerge stronger. A nourishing, resilient and sustainable food future is within our grasp.
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).
Jaime de Melo, Emeritus Professor, University of Geneva [1]
Despite Mauritius’ history of resilience, Jaime de Melo highlights some of the country’s fragilities in terms of governance, environmental protection and human capital. In the short-run, he calls on the country to improve its governance by committing to external scrutiny and to resist protectionist winds. In the longer-run, the article highlights three imperatives: 1) a substantial boost in education to enable the country to grab opportunities brought about by the 4th industrial revolution, 2) the development of a services hub for Africa and 3) greater preservation of the environment to reverse the current rapid environmental degradation on the island.
Effective policies, resilience to shocks (cyclones), adaptation to a changing environment (end of rents associated with the Sugar and Multi-fiber agreements) were key to the success of Mauritius’ 50- year development path. The outcome was five pillars: sugar, textiles, export-processing zone, tourism and outsourcing. Of these, sugar and textiles have faded away. The other three can be preserved. This note argues that three new pillars, each requiring strong government commitment will be needed:
Education to preserve the three pillars and to face the 4th. industrial revolution
Protecting the environment (land and marine environments)
Developing a service centre for Africa along the lines of Dubai in the Middle East, Hong Kong in China and Singapore in South East Asia.
Early resilience to confront the Covid shock
When the Covid pandemic arrived, Mauritius was cruising on a new model of “one tourist visit per Mauritian” every year. An early hard lockdown was thus crucial to stop Covid from spreading. Health-protecting measures were accompanied by substantial fiscal and macro-financial measures to protect wealth [2]. Even though the case fatality ratio of 3% did not place Mauritius among the top performers according to this indicator, Mauritius was among a handful of countries that arrested the spread of the pandemic closing the cases in 40 days.
The economic situation remains uncertain. For tourist-dependent economies, especially those with a weak health sector like Mauritius (Mauritius has a relatively low score on the Global Health Security Index even among African countries), it is appropriate to apply the precautionary principle “better safe than sorry”. However, since it is highly unlikely that the virus will be “under control” in the next 6-12 months globally, the government cannot expect to have a successful partial re-opening for tourism and business travel under the current strict 14-day confinement in a hotel room. With the tourism industry having missed the end-of-year holidays, probabilistic calculations (like those illustrated by Thomas Pueyo, 2020), that evaluate, along a range of indicators, the travellers’ spreading risks need to be carried out now. This would allow the adoption of tailored travel policy for each country.
Relatedly, the Wakashio shipwreck in late July and its aftermath have shown strong collective action support by Mauritians in the clean-up effort, a clear example of resilience. But the event has also exposed the lack of preparedness and competence in protecting the maritime environment. The so-far peaceful, but widespread, mass protests indicate forcefully that Mauritians are losing confidence in their government. Yet trust is essential for effective crisis management. Once lost, trust is hard to restore as shown by the recent example of Chile.
This commentary focuses on economic measures. In the short-run, committing to external scrutiny would help discipline the government and restore confidence. Resisting covid-related protectionist pressures, evidenced in other countries, would also be crucial. In the longer-run, all countries are facing a paper clip shock (temporary shock with permanent effects) that is accelerating the pressure to adapt to the twin challenges of the 4th industrial revolution and the degradation of the environment.
Short-run: restore confidence and resist protectionist pressures
Restore confidence
Health, education, basic research, hard infrastructure are public goods, all with indivisibilities and positive externalities calling for government action. Government financing is, therefore, necessary to ensure adequate supply of these public goods. At the same time, management of government expenditures always requires scrutiny, especially so in this pandemic period of large government support measures. Submitting to external scrutiny should help transparency and build trust. The transparency indicators collected in the Open Budget Survey every two years for a large number of participating countries help benchmarking the level of a country’s transparency in the budget process. Another is the IMF Public Investment Management Assessment (PIMA) framework. This is a tool for evaluating the results of government investments through peer comparisons. Mauritius could also join the WTO plurilateral Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). Signatories take steps to ensure open, fair and transparent conditions of competition in government procurement.
The ICAC should be reformed to make it truly independent. One suggestion is for the Parliamentary Committee that oversees ICAC to be chaired by the Opposition and have a majority of opposition members. ICAC reform jointly with the submission of government expenditures to external scrutiny should help restore trust and transparency.
Resist protectionist pressures
Mauritius is in the club of countries most open to the world for trade in goods and trade in services [3]. Resisting protectionist pressures in times of distress is especially difficult, even in an open economy, because of the pressure to provide for jobs. However, once in place, protectionist measures are difficult to remove because of pressures by lobbies to maintain them. Since the start of the pandemic, the rupee has depreciated approximately 20%. This is a boost for Mauritian exports, but it is also a boost for import-competing activities equivalent to a 20% tariff. For a small economy like Mauritius where dominant positions can develop easily, an economy open to foreign competition by low tariffs is the most effective anti-trust policy (or competition policy) to protect the interests of the consumers. In the current tariff-free economy, the threat of competition from imports (known as the ‘import-discipline’ hypothesis in the economics literature) is the best anti-trust policy.
Long-run: Three new pillars, education, a service centre and the environment
Education
Twenty years ago, human capital was already signalled as ‘the marginal’ contributor to the Mauritian miracle [4]. More recent comparisons confirm this diagnostic [5]. Subsequent structural change over the period 2001-2015 exacerbated this diagnostic through an expansion in the relative demand for highly educated labour outpacing the expansion in relative supply. The outcome was an increase in household income inequality over 2001-2015, notwithstanding large increases in public transfers to the bottom quintile of households [6].
This growing shortage of high-skill labour was exacerbated by the advent of the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Progressively ‘telemigration’ took hold, with workers in one country working for offices in another country, like the call centres in Mauritius. Emerging technologies (advanced robotics, artificial intelligence, internet of things) were already on their way when the Covid pandemic accelerated this transition [7]. Now, white-collar robots-software perform functions, like those in call centres, traditionally accomplished by humans. This is a sudden new challenge for many jobs in the services industries. With fewer activities relying on face-to-face contacts, offices will become redundant, hence we can expect a slowdown in construction activity [8].
This accelerating change in demand for skill presents both a hardware and a software challenge for Mauritius. On the hardware side, access to performing ICT technologies will be necessary. Here Mauritius, as the sixth country in the world with 100% Fiber To The Home is well prepared. Education is the software side of this challenge. Here Mauritius needs a big push. Currently, the share of education expenditures in GDP is around 5% (about the average for the OECD), but there are no indicators of ICT skills. Neither are indicators of preparedness available on a comparative basis. Education outcomes need to be monitored and improved.
Notwithstanding the announcement of further fiscal incentives in the 2020 budget speech to attract foreign institutions to establish campuses in the country, Mauritius will have to improve its higher-education outcomes if it is to be ready to face and take advantage of emerging technologies. The top University in Mauritius ranks 77 out of the top 200 universities in Africa. The first step, however, is improving education outcomes at the high-school level [9]. Here too, submitting to external scrutiny by participating with 77 other countries in the regularly administered OECD PISA tests would be a good yardstick to monitor progress.
Service Centre for Africa
Drawing on its geographic location, solid infrastructure and ethnic diversity, improved educational outcomes would lay the ground for Mauritius to become the prime service centre for Africa. It could contribute to the development of the continent by offering a range of business services and logistics. In addition to the type of services offered by Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore, Mauritius can export its social model as an alternative to the investment by China and by multi-nationals. The Mauritius social model includes making workers and farmers into shareholders as well as the provision of free primary healthcare and education, and a rudimentary social safety net.
The Environment
According to UNEP data, Mauritius has failed to protect both its land and its marine environment [10]. Millennium Development Goals (MDG) targets for water usage and per capita CO2 emissions have been off-target (see Government of Mauritius,2011, table 1.2). Mainstreaming biodiversity in the public and private sectors is yet to take place. Finally, scores on progress towards meeting the Aichi 2011 biodiversity targets for 2020 are low [11]. This balance sheet on environmental preservation is particularly disappointing for the country that was the source of inspiration for Pierre Poivre, the first environmentalist. He wrote the Règlement Economique (1769) for Mauritius making the first set of measures ever proposed that included provisions for forest conservation [12].
Signal that the country is taking the environment seriously
Provide support at home for taking environmental measures when facing politically difficult decisions
Help meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (e.g. by eliminating fuel subsidies moving towards a green development path, etc.)
Show credibly that the country is serious about being “environmentally friendly”, a boost for the tourism pillar.
Unfortunately, Mauritius did not join the group of five countries (Costa Rica, Fiji, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway) that launched the ACCTS.
The early days of Covid showed, once more, that Mauritius has resilience in times of crisis. At the same time, post-crisis developments brought out cracks in the government’s preparedness and overall transparency in governance, as reflected in the nation-wide manifestations. In the short-run, restoring independence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and committing to external scrutiny should contribute to restore confidence. Resisting to protectionist winds in the name of job creation would avoid facing the resistance to removing protection later on. In the longer-run, emerging technologies (AI, IOT), an ‘Apollo’ type challenge, calls for a huge boost in education and the development of a service centre for Africa. Greater preservation of the environment is the other long-run challenge. Taking the SDGs more seriously is the way forward. These long-run challenges would also benefit from external benchmarking and scrutiny.
[1] Thanks to Paul Baker, Myriam Blin and Ali Mansoor for comments and suggestions. A longer, more substantiated version appeared here.
[2] The Central Bank of Mauritius issued 10% of GDP and earmarked another 13% of GDP in foreign exchange to the government, placing Mauritius at par in June with the 11 per cent average for the G20. Bonardi et al. (2020) suggest that governments should provide full support for labour costs but only partial support capital costs through corona loans.
[3] Mauritius is among the top five countries with the lowest average applied tariff (here).
[4] Bunwaree, S (2001) “The Marginal in the Miracle: Human Capital in Mauritius”, International Journal of Educational Development, 21(3), 257-71.
[5] Grigoli (2014) finds that Mauritius lags behind many peers in efficiency of education expenditure, ranked 48th out of 89 developing countries behind, inter alia Barbados, Botswana, Cabo Verde, Fiji, Jamaica, Samoa, Seychelles, Saint Lucia and Tonga. Grigoli, Francesco (2014) “A Hybrid Approach to Estimating the Efficiency of Public Spending on Education in Emerging and Developing Economies”, IMF Working Paper WP/14/19, 2014.
[6] Public transfers have risen steadily over the last 20 years to counteract the increasing wage inequality (World Bank, 2017, figure 1.7).
[7] Many observers describe ICT as the third industrial revolution. Baldwin (2018) calls this new industrialization phase combining telemigration with robotics, ‘globotics’. Baldwin, R. (2019) The Globotics Upheaval: Globalization, Robotics and the Future of Work.
[8] Dingel and Neiman (2020) estimate that 35% of US jobs can be performed at home. For a sample of developing countries, Saltiel (2020) estimates it in the range 5.5% (Ghana) to 23% (Yunnan, China) so 20%, would be a ballpark estimate for Mauritius. Dingel, J. and B. Neiman (2020) “Who Can Work at Home”, Covid Economics, vol. 1. Saltiel, f. (2020) « Who can Work from Home in Developing Countries”, Covid-Economics issue 6.
[9] Based on UNESCO data, Bunwaree (2001, table 1) documents that Mauritius was lagging Bangladesh, Indonesia and other Asian countries in the enrollment rates in technical fields.
[10] Target 11 of the convention on biological diversity calls for at least 17% of land and 10% of coastal and marine areas to be conserved by 2020. On protecting Land areas, Mauritius ranks 158 out of 192. On marine areas, the table suggests that Mauritius has no legislation to protect its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). And in a composite Environmental Protection Index that includes ecosystem preservation, Mauritius ranks 82 out of 180 countries. As an example of challenges ahead on biodiversity, the GOM recognises the lack of progress towards the Aichi (2011) biodiversity targets (see GOM, 2017).
[11] The scores for the 20 targets shows little progress (an average score of 22 out of a maximum score of 100 if all 2020 targets were met at the time of the report in 2017, see GOM (2017, tables 1.10-1.14).
[12] Techera, E. (2019) “Deforestation, climate change and the emergence of legal responses: the international influence of Pierre Poivre’s environmental leadership”.
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).
COVID-19 has created a human tragedy on a huge scale, with deep consequences for the global economy that will lead to an extended recession and long-term hardship.
This foreshadows the greater challenge we face in the years to come as the climate crisis escalates. Already, droughts, tornadoes and floods are threatening the lives and livelihoods of far too many people around the world, yet we are not doing nearly enough to deal with it.
As our thoughts move towards recovering from COVID-19, we must create a more resilient system that ensures the health and safety of all people. We must make sure that we are stronger in the face of the challenges to come. And we must do so without delay
The only way to do this is by re-imagining our relationship with the natural world. We need to entwine social, environmental and economic progress, and decouple economic growth from unsustainable consumption, while driving concrete and collective actions that speed up the adoption of the circular economy and realize systematic change.
Understanding the problem: the take, make, waste system
If we are to build a more resilient system, we must first understand what makes us so vulnerable. Our current linear economic model – in which economic growth is dependent on the endless extraction and use, or misuse, of natural resources – is pushing our planet to the brink.
Over 100 billion tons of resources flow into the economy each year, with the majority eventually lost as waste or emissions, causing lasting damage to the environment and leaving us vulnerable to the ever-worsening effects of the climate crisis.
Any disruption to this flow of resources into the economy also leaves us exposed to huge economic shocks, as has been made all too clear by COVID-19. Global shifts in the labour market, transport and consumer demand have led to wildly fluctuating commodity prices and widespread economic hardship.
With demand for resources expected to double by 2050, our exposure to both environmental and economic challenges will continue to grow.
A visualization of the circular economy in action Image: Ellen MacArthur Foundation
A vision for a more resilient world: a circular economy
We need a clear vision for an alternative future. A world in which we can breathe clean air; a world without the climate threats of droughts and floods. A world where resources are plentiful, with enough for all of us to earn a good livelihood. Our vision for the future is ambitious, but it is possible: a circular economy.
A circular economy is focused on designing out waste and pollution, keeping products and materials in use, and regenerating natural systems, so that we do not exhaust the resources of our planet. Changing the way we make and use products can contribute to addressing 45% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making a critical contribution to mitigating the impending climate crisis. Reducing our reliance on scarce resources increases our economic resilience, and building a circular economy offers a $4.5 trillion economic opportunity by avoiding waste, making businesses more efficient, and creating new employment opportunities. By creating a circular economy we can create a stronger system and flatten or even reverse some of the trends that now threaten the existence of future generations.
1. Focus recovery stimulus on green and circular investment
As economic stimulus packages are introduced to support recovery from COVID-19, such as the €750 billion ($843 billion) proposed by the EU, there is a huge opportunity to deepen our commitment and promote a circular economy as part of a green recovery. The priorities will be investing in renewable energy, protecting biodiversity and transforming agriculture, and funds should also be used to directly encourage circularity – for instance by investing or providing loan guarantees to circular economy start-ups that are driving solutions.
2. Create a policy framework for a circular economy
Governments play an important role in creating this vision. We need to see an ambitious and broad range of policies introduced to shift our relationship with natural resources and incentivize a move towards a circular economy. There should be subsidies for the re-use of materials, and taxes on waste. Recycling should be enforced, with an associated investment in the recycling infrastructure needed to make this possible. Carbon pricing is crucial. Procurement should take into account the ‘total cost of ownership’. Single-use plastic should be banned outright. The European Green Deal includes many of these elements, with a Circular Economy Action Plan sitting at its heart. The broader adoption of these policies would go a long way towards nudging the behaviour change we need to see. An ever growing number of global businesses have made a clear call for the introduction of policies for a green recovery to support their own pledges to embed the SDGs in their ways of working, via initiatives such as the UN Global Compact and the Dutch Sustainable Growth Coalition.
3. Pioneer the adoption of circular business models
Many companies are already shifting away from one-off transactions towards ongoing relationships with their customers. Sharing platforms are on the rise. Some companies are starting to take products back at the end of their economic life – this has the dual benefits of keeping scarce materials in use for as long as possible, while also reducing reliance on availability of raw materials and thus creating a business model that is more resilient against shocks.
The immediate crisis caused by COVID-19 is certainly putting pressure on many companies, but it is crucial that business leaders maintain their commitments to sustainability and circularity during any short-term impact. Long-term thinking is key, but actions make all the difference. When governments introduce measures like carbon pricing and border adjustment tariffs as included in the European Green Deal, the companies that are innovating and adjusting their business models will find themselves at a clear business advantage – as well as contributing to the better world we so desperately need.
4. Innovate to stimulate circularity
There are many opportunities for encouraging innovation to change our relationship with our ecosystem, by using new technologies that enable more circular business models. COVID-19 has seen a sudden and dramatic shift towards home working, remote healthcare, and digital virus-tracking, and we can take these lessons forward into the recovery. We need to encourage the use of new, competitive technologies to reduce energy consumption, to harvest and re-use materials, scale the availability of green energy sources, expand lifecycles of products, and reduce waste. The technology breakthroughs are within reach; we just need to invest in and adopt them.
As we move towards recovery from COVID-19, we must embrace the future, and not postpone the inevitable by hanging on to the past. We must reject waste and adopt circularity. By leveraging all the knowledge, power and influence we have to push forward on these priorities we can build a circular economy. It will take deep collaboration between business, government and civil society, but the rewards will be well worth it; a stronger ecosystem that will be resilient for the decades to come, and a world where people and nature can live together in harmony.
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).
As the threat of a COVID-19 pandemic emerged earlier this year, many felt a sense of apprehension about what would happen when it reached Africa. Concerns over the combination of overstretched and underfunded health systems and the existing load of infectious and non-infectious diseases often led to it being talked about in apocalyptic terms.
However, it has not turned out quite that way. On September 29th, the world passed the one million reported deaths mark (the true figure will of course be higher). On the same day, the count for Africa was a cumulative total of 35,954.
Africa accounts for 17% of the global population but only 3.5% of the reported global COVID-19 deaths. All deaths are important, we should not discount apparently low numbers, and of course data collected over such a wide range of countries will be of variable quality, but the gap between predictions and what has actually happened is staggering. There has been much discussion on what accounts for this.
As leads of the COVID-19 team in the African Academy of Sciences, we have followed the unfolding events and various explanations put forward. The emerging picture is that in many African countries, transmission has been higher but severity and mortality much lower than originally predicted based on experience in China and Europe.
We argue that Africa’s much younger population explains a very large part of the apparent difference. Some of the remaining gap is probably due to under reporting of events but there are a number of other plausible explanations. These range from climatic differences, pre-existing immunity, genetic factors and behavioural differences.
Given the enormous variability in conditions across a continent – with 55 member states – the exact contribution of any one factor in a particular environment is likely to vary. But the bottom line is that what appeared at first to be a mystery looks less puzzling as more and more research evidence emerges.
The importance of age
The most obvious factor for the low death rates is the population age structure. Across multiple countries the risk of dying of COVID-19 for those aged 80 years or more is around a hundred times that of people in their twenties.
This can best be appreciated with a specific example. As of September 30th, the UK had reported 41,980 COVID-19 specific deaths while Kenya, by contrast, had reported 691. The population of the UK is around 66 million with a median age of 40 compared with Kenya’s population of 51 million with a median age of 20 years.
Corrected for population size the death toll in Kenya would have been expected to be around 32,000. However if one also corrects for population structure (assumes that the age specific death rates in the UK apply to the population structure of Kenya), we would expect around 5,000 deaths. There is still a big difference between 700 and 5,000; what might account for the remaining gap?
Other possible contributors
One possibility is the failure to identify and record deaths.
Kenya, as with most countries, initially had little testing capacity and specific death registration is challenging. However, Kenya quickly built up its testing capacity and the extra attention to finding deaths makes it unlikely that a gap of this size can be fully accounted for by missing information.
There has been no shortage of ideas for other factors that may be contributing.
A recent large multi-country study in Europe reported significant declines in mortality related to higher temperature and humidity. The authors hypothesised that this may be because the mechanisms by which our respiratory tracts clear virus work better in warmer more humid conditions. This means that people may be getting less virus particles into their system.
It should be noted however that a systematic review of global data – while confirming that warm and wet climates seemed to reduce the spread of COVID-19 – indicated that these variables alone could not explain most of the variability in disease transmission. It’s important to remember that there’s considerable weather variability throughout Africa. Not all climates are warm or wet and, if they are, they may not stay that way throughout the year.
Other suggestions include the possibility of pre-existing protective immune responses due either to previous exposure to other pathogens or to BCG vaccination, a vaccine against tuberculosis provided at birth in most African countries. A large analysis – which involved 55 countries, representing 63% of the world’s population – showed significant correlations between increasing BCG coverage at a young age and better outcomes of COVID-19.
Genetic factors may also be important. A recently described haplotype (group of genes) associated with increased risk of severity and present in 30% of south Asian genomes and 8% of Europeans is almost absent in Africa.
The role of these and other factors – such as potential differences in social structures or mobility – are subject to ongoing investigation.
More effective response
An important possibility is that public health response of African countries, prepared by previous experiences (such as outbreaks or epidemics) was simply more effective in limiting transmission than in other parts of the world.
However, in Kenya it’s estimated that the epidemic actually peaked in July with around 40% of the population in urban areas having been infected. A similar picture is emerging in other countries. This implies that measures put in place had little effect on viral transmission per se, though it does raise the possibility that herd immunity is now playing a role in limiting further transmission.
At the same time there is another important possibility: the idea that viral load (the number of virus particles transmitted to a person) is a key determinant of severity. It has been suggested that masks reduce viral load and that their widespread wearing may limit the chances of developing severe disease. While WHO recommends mask wearing, uptake has been variable and has been lower in many European countries, compared with many parts of Africa.
So is Africa in the clear? Well, obviously not. There is still plenty of virus around and we do not know what may happen as the interaction between the virus and humans evolves.
However, one thing that does seem clear is that the secondary effects of the pandemic will be Africa’s real COVID-19 challenge. These stem from the severe interruptions of social and economic activities as well as the potentially devastating effects of reduced delivery of services which protect millions of people, including routine vaccination as well as malaria, TB and HIV control programmes.
Research agendas
Major implications of the emerging picture include the need to re-evaluate African COVID-19 research agendas. While many of the priorities originally identified may still hold, their relative importance is likely to have changed. The key point is to deal with the problems as they are now rather than as they were imagined to be six months ago.
The same thing applies for public health policy. Of course, basic measures such as hand washing remain essential (regardless of COVID-19) and wearing masks should be continued while there is any level of COVID-19 transmission. However, other measures with broader effects on society, especially restrictions on educational and economic activity, should be under continuous review.
A key point now is to increase surveillance and ensure that flexible responses are driven by high quality real time data.
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).
Raj Makoond, Program Director – Eclosia & Chairman of the Financial Services Institute
In this paper, Raj Makoond reviews the limited legislative changes that have occurred with respect to the funding of political parties in Mauritius. He argues that, with the recent EU blacklisting, the absence of a regulatory framework is a major systemic weakness in the country’s efforts to combat corruption and money laundering. The introduction of an appropriate legislation to ensure transparency and accountability in the source and use of funds has become a high priority.
Over the last 25 years, Mauritius has introduced a wide range of legal and regulatory reforms in its fight against corruption and money laundering. These reforms were driven by both the international context as well as the national economic exigencies, particularly Mauritius’ strategy to position itself as a reliable and respected jurisdiction for offshore business activities, later to be known as global businesses.
In this paper, I outline the progress achieved on the legal and institutional arrangements in Mauritius to date as well as the challenges that remain to be addressed. In particular, I argue that, in the context of the EU blacklisting, the absence of a regulatory framework with respect to the financing of political parties continues to be a major systemic weakness in the country’s efforts to combat corruption and money laundering. Currently, there is no transparency or accountability with respect to the financing of political parties in Mauritius.
The International Context
At the international level, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the European Union, and the United States undertook the first wave of anti-corruption initiatives. This included the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption(1996), the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions(1997), and the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption adopted by the Council of Europe in 1999. The European Union also passed a convention against corruption involving officials in 1997.
On the anti-money laundering front, the G7 including the European Commission triggered a global movement by establishing the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) against money laundering in 1989. In October 2001, following the 9/11 attack, the fight against terrorist financing was added to the mission of the FATF. In 2008, following the global financial crisis, the G20 further enhanced the powers and scope of the FATF.
The Mauritian Context
At the national level, following the 1992 Euro Money Conference in Mauritius, it was clearly shown that the country was well-positioned to emerge as an International Financial Services Centre. Mauritius benefited from the opportunities brought about by the opening up of the Indian economy in 1991 and the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) signed between India and Mauritius, and effective since 1983. In 1992, the government passed the Mauritius Offshore Business Activities Act and the Mauritius Offshore Business Activities Authority (MOBAA) was set up. In 2001, the Financial Services Development Act was passed, and MOBAA was replaced by the Financial Services Commission (FSC). The Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) was also established under the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2002 to investigate suspicious transactions in the context of money laundering. In the fight against corruption, the Prevention of Corruption Act was passed in 2002, setting up the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) in replacement of the Economic Crime Office, which had been dismantled in 2001.
Following a major consultative exercise carried out among all stakeholders and with the advisory support of Mervyn King, chairman of the King Committee on Corporate Governance, the Financial Reporting Act was passed in 2004. The act provided the legal basis for setting up a Code of Corporate Governance by a National Committee on Corporate Governance. This code referred to the need for the disclosure of political donations in line with section 23 of the Model JEC Code of Ethics [1], proposed by the Joint Economic Council (JEC) in 2001. The JEC was the apex private sector organization in Mauritius. It merged with the Mauritius Employers Federation in 2015 to form Business Mauritius.
Funding of Political Parties as a Policy Issue in Mauritius
The aforementioned Model Code of Ethics [1] was elaborated in consultation with Bertrand de Spéville, the former commissioner of Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption. It made specific reference to the financing of political parties by the private sector, stating that contributions to political organisations or electoral candidates should be specifically recorded as such in the company’s books and that the contribution should be made in accordance with all applicable laws. Subsequently, the JEC deponed before the bi-partisan Select Committee of the Mauritius legislative assembly. In May 2002, this Select Committee (presided by Emmanuel Leung Shing, Q.C Attorney General) was assigned the task of examining and elaborating the recommendations of the Commission on Constitutional and Electoral Reform 2001/02 regarding the public funding of political parties (chaired by retired South African Judge Albie Sachs) with a view “to promoting sound, dynamic, and lively democracy and eliminating the risks of corruption and influence peddling”[2].
The Select Committee submitted its report in October 2004 [3]. The report addressed three essential components of the regulatory framework, namely the powers of the Electoral Supervisory Commission (ESC), the sources of fund, and the rules governing the transparency and accountability of political parties.
There is a fundamental difference between the Sachs’ Report and that of the Select Committee with respect to the sources of fund. Whereas Sachs’ position was radical and prescribed state funding as the only source of finance for political parties, the Select Committee took the view that funding could be made by various stakeholders with the State giving some “minimal” reimbursement. Sachs’ approach was exclusive and “state-controlled” whilst the Select Committee adopted a more participatory and inclusive approach.
The JEC supported the conclusions of the Select Committee, and at a Government/ Private Sector meeting held in February 2005, reaffirmed that the establishment of a regulatory framework was urgent, and invited Government to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee.
It is pertinent to highlight that there was no calendar set for the implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee, contrary to the plan set by Government to establish the Financial Reporting Council and the code of Good Corporate Governance under the Financial Reporting Act.
In 2009, JEC reiterated the need for a regulatory framework in its submission to the Electoral Supervisory Commission in the context of the ruling of the Privy Council in the case of Ashok Jugnauth vs Raj Ringadoo, inviting the ESC to draw up a code of conduct for ministers and civil servants for the period after an election has been declared.
In 2017, Business Mauritius set up a Working Group on the funding of political parties and made representations to the authorities for the establishment of a regulatory framework. In 2019, the Political Financing Bill was introduced in the National Legislative Assembly, but unfortunately, it did not receive the support of the Assembly and was not enacted.
New Legislation Needed
The EU blacklisting announcement in May 2020, following the inclusion of Mauritius in the grey list of FATF in February 2020, was a wakeup call. Indeed, Mauritius has been quick in its response so far, especially with respect to the Designated Non-Financial Business and Professionals (DNFBPs) segment. The amendments brought in 2020 through the AML/CFT (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act [3] and the amendment of the Financial Intelligence and Anti-Money Laundering Act empowered the FIU, the FSC and the Bank of Mauritius (BOM) to be more effective in the combat against money laundering.
However, the absence of legislation that would empower the ESC to set the contours regarding the sources of funds and the rules for transparency and accountability of political parties with respect to their expenses, stands out as a major weakness in the regulatory landscape of Mauritius.
Indeed, the EU blacklisting has made it even more fundamental that our laws reflect such transparency, and that we ensure that the proceeds of predicate crimes do not find their way into any activities, including those within the political sphere.
We are today at a major junction to prevent further reputational damage. The political class, across all parties, has to show responsibility and leadership and introduce an appropriate legislation to regulate the funding of political parties as soon as possible, preferably before the next financial year.
[1] Joint Economic Council. Model JEC Code of Ethics. (2001).
[2] Report of the Select Committee on Funding of Political Parties. (2004).
[3] Anti-Money Laundering and Combating of the Financing of Terrorism (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (AML/ CFT Act). (2020).
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).
We use cookies to help us to learn about you and how you use our website.
To accept cookies, click on Accept & Close, and continue browsing, or if you want to know more, please view our Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
