Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Coordination : Martine DELMAS-FERRE Nasser EDDINE SAID ALI Sitti ATTOUMANI Victoire ANDRIATAHIANA
Janvier 1999
MAURITIUS
INTRODUCTION
Report Objectives : This report is a contribution to Tourism Environment Assessment Guidelines for the SEACAM countries. This report is included in the objectives of the Regional Environment Project ( Countries of Indian Ocean Commission ) : Integrated Coastal Zone Management approach. The aim of this report is also to improve environmental evaluation in tourism developments in Mauritius. Links between Tourism and Environment are very obvious in all the countries, but more importantly on a small island and a developing country, such as Mauritius, where tourism is a major part of economic development. All the island can be considered as a coastal zone, because many causes of environmental degradation come from the whole island to the seaside and the lagoon. Given the type of tourism - beach tourism - all the developments are concentrated on the seaside in a very fragile ecosystem. In Mauritius, the environmental issues are more important, because of the strong economic development : Industry, Sugar Cane Consequently, Tourism is one of the causes of environmental degradations on the coastal zone, although not the most important, and the serious environmental impacts of Industry and Agriculture have negative consequences on tourism. This report contains 4 sections : Context of Mauritius : Tourism Situation, State of the Environment, Tourism and Environment. Analysis of existing tools for Environmental Evaluation , Proposal for improvements of Evaluation Tools, Case study : Ile aux deux cocos.
I - CONTEXT OF MAURITIUS
Strong economic development on a small territory is generating threats on environment. In a developing country, there is often a gap between development and prevention or correction measures. In Mauritius, we have very fast development simultaneously causing numerous problems, a lack of human resources and frequent undeserved privileges. Various conflicts of interest on a small space, particularly on the coastal zone, between various activities.
1 TOURISM IN MAURITIUS
A seaside tourism : all the touristic hotels and private bungalows are on the beach or very close to it. Hotel industry facilities with 94 hotel units, totaling 7 000 rooms Tourist arrivals in 1997 : 536 125 persons, for about 1 180 000 inhabitants . The average length of stay is 9 10 days ; touristic population is not exceeding 50 000 persons.
An important economic weight (10 milliards roupies in 1997 ), among the 3 pillars of the economy along with the sugar sector and industry (especially textile). Added value : 3 650 000 Rs, soit 4,9 % of GDP. In 1997, there were 15 425 direct employments in Tourism Sector and about 50 000 indirect employments. Tourism in Mauritius is constantly increasing : increase of 9,6 % between 1996 and 1997, and 14, 9 % between 1995 and 1996. In 1997, a Tourism carrying capacity study shows the possibility for Mauritius to absorb 9000 rooms maximum for 700 000 750 000 tourists, without threat on physical and social environment. However, in political declarations Mauritus is waiting for 1 000 000 to 1 200 000 tourists, and are ready to give development permits for reach these numbers, taking into account only the foreseeable evolution of the market. Main problems : Implementation of a tourism policy concerning carrying capacity, Decrease of tourism quality : . More and more private bungalows, which actually represent about 35 % of lodging facilities and which have a negative quality-price relation. . Quality of global environment is decreasing according to the tourists and the tours operators perception : very bad quality of buildings, solid wastes, loss of vegetation, dead coral in the lagoon, and water quality of the lagoon Conflicts of interest in the coastal zone . access to the seaside and to the public beaches is decreasing, although more and more Mauritians are going to the beach, . growth of urbanization in the coastal zone, for tourism and urban development : actually 30 % of population live in the coastal zone (40 % if Port-Louis is included ).
. Degradation of coral reef (by fishing, water sports, water pollution) These impacts can be reversible or improved if implement master plans. More improvement for hotels than for bungalows, because it is possible to impose regulation throught the EIA. Certain impacts are irreversible, such as buildings (hotels, bungalows, restaurants) on the shoreline (unlikely dmolition ) generating erosion and restrictive access to the seaside. It is too late for existing buildings on the shoreline, but in the future, it is possible to stop these constructions and to improve the situation by pulling down small structures, such as jetties, wallsetc
3 - TOURISM AND ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Main impacts of tourism on environment 3-1-1 Negative impacts, in order
Tourism is among several causes of very important environmental degradation such as the textile and agricultural industries, but its effects are not negligible, because :
The rapid growth of this sector, and also the rapid growth of urbanization in the coastal zone, composed of bungalows for tourists and new residential areas (low and high class) which are punctually rented to tourists. Seaside attractiveness has been boosted by tourism. The concentration of touristic structures in 3 areas of the coastal zone, more than the economic scale and minimal animation would require ; a ribbon coastal development restricting the public access to the beaches.
The main impact is on the lagoon : unload of waste water discharge and oil spill from the boats.
According to the waste water regulations, only large hotels (more than 75 rooms) are obliged to have a treatment plant ; however, their system is not always efficient and the other hotels (majority) unload waste water directly in the lagoon.
Watersports activities are not yet regulated. Tourism is also accelerating coastal erosion : . by building too close to the water : buildings, jetties, seawalls, wallsand also all infrastructures linked to tourism development : roads, transport and energy services, public amenities . by deforestation ; replanting in landscaping optic, not in anti-erosive optic. Visual impact by some hotels and particularly by new bungalows, rapidly built without concern for immediate and general environment and without no concern for real tourists motivations . Socio-economic impacts : . Drecrease of public access for mauritian population, . Influences on values and way of life, . Increase in prices, . Increase of import and influences on commercial balance.
Conversely, environmental degradation due to other economic sectors has a very negative impact on tourism development : industry, agriculture, fishing, urbanization, sand extraction Indeed on a short term basis, the visible impacts will create a negative impact on the tourism image (and thus, the arrivals) : . landscape destruction caused by anarchic urbanization and very unesthetic buildings (in a European s opinion in any case), . industrial and domestic trash piles,
. progressive disappearance of natural spaces on the seaside, . water quality of the lagoon and dead coral (noticed by a large number of tourists), . decrease in relational qualities due to the number of tourists as well as to the change of socio-economic structure. On a long term basis : coastal erosion, coral reef degradation
More and more projects in areas that were formerly inaccessible, very fragile, notably islets around the main island and areas that were declared public beaches or in the process of being declared public, because interesting areas for tourism developments are becoming rare.
In short : Recent, but very strong awareness, Lot of expert evaluations, but little support because of lack of technico-scientific data, Beginning of monitoring, particularly for the lagoon, No systematic implementation of the guidelines, A reflexion for coastal zone integrated management, but not yet expressed in implemented texts,
1-2 Sectorial laws : Many sectorial laws provide possibility to take environment into consideration , such as : Waste Water Act, Public Health Act, Fisheries Act, Morcellement Act, building Act and more general : Town and Country Planning Act, Local Government Act
2 - EXISTING GUIDELINES
General Guideline : National Physical Development Plan, approved in 1993. Tourism : Tourism Development Impaact Assessment and Policy formulation, carried out in 1992, never approved, And Tourism Carrying Capacity, carried out in 1997, never approved. Environment : Guidelines : State of the the environment (1991), Vision 2020 : National Long-Term Prerspective Study ( 1994), Many sectorial studies, Environmentally sensitive areas ( 1993 ), never completed, Action Plans : National Environment Action Plan (NEAP I in 1988) and NEAP II under study ; Master Plan for Public Beaches in 1997 (not yet approved), Management plan for islets around Mauritius, Regional planning : tourist northern coast and west coast (not approved).
3 - PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF EIA - EIA IN THE TOURISM FIELD Since the beginning of the EIA implementation, 27 htels have submitted an EIA (mainly extensions) ; also some projects in the lagoon, such as the water skiing lane nautic at Maritim Hotel, the artificial beach of Touessrok Hotel, the Golf course for Ile aux Cerfs
Reactions to EIA : by NGOs (FoE, MSDA, ACIM , MWAF ), fishermen, newspapers .
Main reaction concerning limited access to the local population, then deforestation, elimination of species to protect and pollution risks fot the lagoon.
The list of projects submitted to EIA is not exhaustive and not detailed enough. The size, location and precise nature of the project are never taken into account. There is no guideline for each type of project, with criteria and standards.
Weak diagnostic : rather a description of the actual state of the environment (physical environment), given in figures, notations carried out during the EIA study, without interpretation and results analysis.
No precise expert stands concerning impacts, especially long-term impacts.
Thus, difficulty for the decision-makers to apprehend the reality of the impacts (not all the required skills. Very few corrective measures proposed and never a non feasibility conclusion, but this is related to the petioners payment for the study.
Lack of reference to the existing guidelines, whether they be approved or not. Socio-economic aspects often low, or even noexistant. EIA is especially produced by engineers, rarely by multidisciplinary teams (it is also a cost problem). Lack of human ressources for control of recommendations.
4 - ANALYSIS OF THE STRENGHTS AND WEAKNESSES OF THESE EVALUATION TOOLS : 4.1 The strengths
Many sectorial studies and plans are available and sufficiently recent to be used by the decision-makers. Some NGO specialized Environment in Mauritius and reacted during public consultation, also the press. Professionals in Mauritius (not enough), Public information in newspapers, Existence of Environment Appeal Court, Interministeriel Committee for examining EIA (coordination is underway), Appeal to public opinion and professionals to amend EIA regulations.
. There is not a publication of the decision, to know the appeal delay. - Decision : . Administration does not listen to petitioner and/or his consultant, . No NGO or external experts on EIA Committee , . Too much DoE and Ministerial power in relation to the Environment Officers expertise, . No DoE response time limit.
2 - IMPROVEMENT OF PROCEDURE
Review of listing projects which have to be sumitted to EIA : complete the list of projects and introduce criteria of size (height and surface), nature and location. Public Projects submitte to EIA, Project categorization for various EIA levels : DoE screening : . First category : small projects not submitted to EIA, only DoE zoning verification (examples : chicken coops with limited sizes, or residential parcel divisions according to the land area and location . Second category : mi-sized projects, submitted to a simplified EIA procedure, even produced by DoE, with the possibility of requesting technical advice from an external expert about specific points. . Third category : large projects submitted to a detailed EIA procedure. Implementation of an environmental audit for existing structures ; for tourism sector, specify the hotel size and the variouds infrastructures linked to tourism. This audit could also be implemented for projects that are underway, those for which ceertain aspects were not studied or those where an unexpected problem arose.
Referral obligation to the existing guidelines, even if not yet in force. Formulation and approval of the guideline for environmentally sensitive areas, which would be an excellent evaluation tool particularly for the coastal zone which is concerned in nearly all the tourism projects and which would be integrated into the coastal zone management. Proponent and his consultant hearing before the EIA Committee. Increase the consultation time period to one month and limit the Ministrys response time to a maximum of 3 to 4 months. Inform a larger audience, on the project site, by radio and TVwith a comprehensible manner for the public.
EIA contents : Guidelines for each type of project, with following complements : . socio-economic aspects, . landscaping . rehabilitation of physical environment after project achievement, . if necessary, proposal of alternative solutions or modifications of initial project, . directs et indirects impacts (largir le champ dtude). Control : Usage of Local authorities personnel (Districts, Municipalities), to enforce recommendations carried out in the EIA.
A luxurious hotel on a small islet (4 ha) very close to the beach, in Blue Bay area, where a marine park is decided since 1975. In this bay, where the marine and coastal ressources are very important (among the most beautiful lagoon of Mauritius), the pressure on environment is alreday strong : hotels, bungalows, morcellement, ski lane, numerous boats, very much frequented public beach In 1990, a first project of 75 suites (equivalent to 150 rooms) had obtain the development permit and the authorization of the Ministry of Environment , giving specific conditions in relation to the marine park. This project is abandoned ; in 1993, the EIA regulation is approved ; in 1995, a new project is proposed by a new company, the EIA report is submitted in january 1996, but the EIA licence is not given by the Ministry of Environment. In 1997, this company refers to the Environment Appeal Court, and recently the State Law Office decide to give the authorization for the first project ! because the first permit is valid ! . A development permit is normally given to a company for a specific project ; this company doent exist now ! Also, this decision dont take into account the existing guidelines for the islets management :
environment preservation and rehabilitation, restriction for leasing to private sector The new project was more friendly for the Environment, because of the number of rooms, ((100 rooms + 10 suites), not spreading on all the islet, providing a base on the mainland (common spaces), and more attention to the infrastructures : impact of the boat access and impact of networks (waste water, water supply, electricity, telephone) was analyzed. However, an hotel on this islet is not good for the environment : . Risks of waste water discharge, if there is some problem of maintenance or accident, . Increase of boats in the bay : discharge of oil spill. These causes will have a direct effect on the lagoon : water pollution and destruction of submarine life. Building very near the water is a cause of accelerating erosion. There is also a negative socio-economic impact for the fishermen in this area.