IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE APPEAL TRIBUNAL In the matter of: 1. David SAUVAGE 2. Stephan GUA 3. Kugan PARAPEN Appellants v ister 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 Co-Respondents No 1 & 2 Statement of Defence (CR1&2SOD) on Appellant's Statement of Case (ASOC!REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 1. In reply to paragraphs 1 and 2 of CR1&2SOD, which is denied and Co- Respondents No.1 and 2 put to proof thereof, the Appellants aver that they have the necessary locus standi to enter 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 objection of the Co- Respondents No.1 and 2 be set aside. With costs. REPLY ON MERITS 3. The Appellants take note of paragraphs 3 and 4 of CR1&2SOD. 4, In reply to paragraph 5 of CR1&2SOD, the Appellants aver that a Respondent No. 2's inaction concerning ESAs restoration and preservation, and Co-Respondent No. 3 inactions towards Ramsar Convention relating fo "Wise use of wetlands and their fauna and flora’ (Annex 47) are the cause of bad land identification from Ministry of Housing and Lands for tourism development, amongst other parcelling of State Lands in the vicinity of ESA Wetland 76 In (CR1&2SOD Annex At, page 23), it is well stated in section 96 that "Government is committed to develop tourism infrastructure in an integrated and environmentally friendly manner’, that is not the case of proposed project In (CR1&2SOD Annex A3, page 2), the Appellants are appalled by the content of this press article, notably the following section “Showkutally Soodhun présidera un comité aux cotés de son collégue Etienne Sinatambou (Environnement) pour approuver tous les EIA soumis. Répondant a une question de la presse, il devait affirmer quiils seront tous approuvés et que si des écologistes manifestent leur désapprobation, « zot pou al dormi »" Page 2 of 19i The respect of the Rule of Law by implicated Ministers is questionable ii. The due consideration of the EPA Act, ELUAT Act and BROS by Government Ministers (Respondent No. 1 and Honorable Showkutally Soodhun, ex-Minister of Housing and Lands) is questionable il, Access to Justice rights of the Appellants, and at large of the citizens of the Republic Mauritius is questionable d. The district of Black River is saturated with hotels, real estates and villa projects, consisting of 3 IRS, 22 RES and 7 PDS (Annex 23, Annex 24, Annex 25) and at least ten Resort Hotels. If this kind of development were beneficial for local communities, existing social issues (education, housing, employment, health) would have been already solved. The Appellants are alive to the alarming gentrification process all along the coastline, specifically in the Black River district, due to the cascade of real estate development projects being undertaken in the sole interest of local property developers and these projects are threatening the very existence of longstanding coastal communities (Annex 19). 5. The Appellants take note of paragraphs 6 to 44 of CR1&2SOD, without making any admissions whatsoever. 6. Inreply to paragraph 45 (a) of CR1&2SOD, which is denied and Co-Respondents No.1 and 2 put to proof thereof, the Appellants aver that they are aggrieved by the decision of the Respondents inasmuch as; a. A common property resource that provides inestimable services 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 Republic of Mauritius. ». The Appellants’ 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" ii, “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” Page 3 of 19