IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE APPEAL TRIBUNAL In the matter of: 4, David SAUVAGE 2. Stephan GUA 3. Kugan PARAPEN Appellants v 1. The Minister of Social Security, National Solidarity, and Environment and Sustainable Development (Environment and Sustainable Development Division), The Honourable Marie Joseph Noél Etienne Ghislain SINATAMBOU. 2. Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity, and Environment and Sustainable Development (Environment and Sustainable Development Division), represented by its Permanent Secretary Respondents In the presence of: 1. New Mauritius Hotels Limited 2. Les Salines Golf & Resort Limited 3. The Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security Co-Respondents Reply to Respondents No 1 and 2 Statement of Defence (R1&2SOD) on Appellant's Statement of Case (ASOC) REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Page 4 of 151. Ex facie the Statement of Case of the Appellants, itis clear that they are aggrieved by the decision of the Respondents and have the necessary locus standi to bring the present proceedings inasmuch as they were involved in the consultative process with the Respondents and made representations with them to the effect that the EIA Licence should not be granted. Nevertheless, the Respondents granted the EIA Licence to the Co-Respondents No. 1 and 2. The Appellants thus have sufficient interest in the matter to challenge the decision of the Respondents as they are aggrieved by the decision to grant the EIA Licence. 2. The Appellants therefore move that the preliminary objections be set aside with costs. REPLY ON MERITS 3, The Appellants take note of paragraph 1 of R1&2SOD. 4, In reply to paragraph 2 of R1&2SOD, the Appellants aver that they are aggrieved inasmuch as: a. A common property resource that provides inestimable service to the society (Annex 8, page 7), is being disrupted despite the existence of numerous regulations and policies protecting it (ASOC Annex 9), part of a trend that is endangering all the ESAs of the Republic of Mauritius, b. Our Natural Heritage is being disrupted. Among UNESCO's natural criteria under consideration for a site (Annex 5); i. “is an outstanding example representing significant on-going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems, and communities of plants and animals" ji, “contains the most important and significant natural habitats for in- situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation" c. The Appellants, as citizens of Mauritius, are facing moral and psychological prejudice because; i. There is a major trend of environment disruption in Mauritius (Annex 45), especially concerning Wetlands; 1. “Backiiling of wetlands is an enormous problem in Mauritius, affecting 90% of all wetlands’ (Annex 7, page 35) Page 2 of 152. ‘Fragmentation of wetlands occurs when a single large wetland is subdivided into several smaller wetlands by backfilling and land reclamation” (Annex 7, page 34) 3. "More than half of the wetlands (60%) have been obviously fragmented, mostly as a result of extensive land development" (Annex 7, page 34) 4, ‘We found that 105 wetlands have at least 90% of their border disturbed whereas only 11 can be considered intact with less than 10% edge disturbance” (Annex 7, page 35) ii. EC1 of the BROS already defines how to set the balance between environment protection and development needs with regards to ESAs is being completely disregarded (ASOC Annex 9, page 68) Adoption of ESA Map (Annex 1, page 61), EIA Improvement (Annex 1, page 62) and Establishment of the “ESA Clearance’ (Annex 1, page 65) have not been promulgated through regulations under the EPA 96(2) section, as per the Proposal for Immediate Adoption put forward by the ESA Study 2009 (Annex 4, page 61); i. Since nearly 10 years by successive Ministers of Respondent No. 2 (Annex 2, page 117) I. Since more than 2 years by Respondent No. 1 (Annex 3) This trend of environmental disruption (Annex 15), especially with regards to Wetlands, is being pursued by the disruption of ESA Wetland 76 and put us, citizens of Mauritius, along with future generations of Mauritians in a dangerous situation of having our well-being irreversibly affected The ESA Wetland 76, classified amongst the highest conservation value (Annex 7, page 42) environmentally sensitive area wetland of category 1 (Annex 8, page 145) is planned to be disrupted despite the existence of numerous regulations and policies protecting it (ASOC Annex 9) The Appellants fee! strongly concerned about all forms of life, which is an existential dimension for us as human beings. Human beings form an integral part of the ecosystem and are interdependent on all forms of life for their survival . Our well-being depends on the protection and restoration of Mauritius’ Environment Sensitive Areas Wetlands, as defined in the “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Wetlands and Water" report (Annex 4), from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment initiative . In the context of the major ecological crisis, the Appellants consider themselves as responsible citizens of the Republic of Mauritius and thus defenders of our Common House Page 3 of 15