IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE APPEAL TRIBUNAL AN licati jet Section 4 of the Environmental and Land Use Appeal Tribunal Act 2012) In the matter of, 1. David SAUVAGE 2. Stephan GUA 3. Kugan PARAPEN, all of them electing their domicile in the office of the undersigned Attorney at Law situate at 3 Floor, Les Jamalacs Building, Vieux Conseil Street, Port Louis APPLICANTS ws 1. New Mauritius Hotels Limited, represented by its Directors and having its registered address at Beachcomber House, Botanical Garden Street, Curepipe 2. Les Salines Golf & Resort Limited, represented by its Directors and having its registered address at Beachcomber House, Botanical Garden Street, Curepipe. RESPONDENTS In the presence of, 1. The ler of Social Security, National Solidarity, and Environment and Sustainable Development (Environment and Sustainable Development Division), The Honourable Marie Joseph Noél Etienne Ghislain SINATAMBOU, of Ken Lee Tower, Cnr Barracks & St Georges Streets, Port-Louis. 2. Ministry of Social Security, National Solidarity, and Environment and Sustainable Development (Environment and Sustainable Development Division), represented by its Permanent Secretary, of Ken Lee Tower, Cnr Barracks & St Georges Streets, Port- Louis. 3. The Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security, represented by its Permanent Secretary, of Level 6-9, Renganaden Seenevassen Building, Port Louis. (CO-RESPONDENTS |, Jean-Marie David Sauvage, a Software Engineer, of Mother Courage Centre, Bois Cheri Road, Moka and holder of Mauritian Passport bearing No. 1406719, MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT:1. | am the Applicant No.1 in the above matter and I have been duly authorised to swear the Present affidavit on behalf of Applicants No.2 and 3. 2. Ihave taken due cognisance of the affidavit sworn by the Respondents’ representative on the 7* February 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘RA1’), in reply to the Applicants’ first affidavit dated 24 January 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘AA1') 3. Save as is hereinatter expressly admitted, each and every averment contained in RA1 is denied by the Applicants as if here set out seriatim and traversed one by one. 4. The Applicants take note of paragraph 1 of RAt REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 5. In reply to paragraphs 2 to 4 of RA1, which are denied, the Applicants 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 to them to the effect that the EIA Licence should not be granted. Nevertheless, the Respondents granted the EA Licence to the Respondents. 6. The Applicants aver that they have an interest and the required standing to bring the present application inasmuch as the very nature of environmental law and environment protection affords them the right to defend their rights and use their best endeavours to preserve and enhance the quality of life by caring responsibly for the natural environment in Mauritius, as er the terms of the Environment Protection Act 2002. 7. The Applicants aver that they 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. & The Applicants therefore move that the preliminary objection of the Respondents be set aside. With costs. REPLY ON MERITS 9. The Applicants take note of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of RA1 without making admission as regards to the contents thereof. 10. In reply to paragraph 8 to 10 of RA1, the Applicants aver that: a. The Co-Respondent No. 2's inaction concerning the ESAs restoration and Preservation, and Co-Respondent No. 3's inaction towards the Ramsar Convention relating to “Wise use of wetlands and their fauna and flora” (Annex 17) 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. b. In RAI, Annex A1, page 23, it is well stated In Section 96 that “Government is committed to develop tourism infrastructure in an integrated and environmentally friendly manne?”, which is not the case of the proposed project Page 2 of 15 8 Fc. InRA1, Annex A3, page 2, the Applicants 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 quils seront tous approuvés et que si des écologistes manifestent leur désapprobation, « zot pou al dormi »" i. The respect of the Rule of Law by implicated Ministers is questionable ji, The due consideration of the legal instruments, namely, the EPA Act, ELUAT Act and Black River Outline Scheme by Government Ministers (Co- Respondent No. 1 and Honorable Showkutally Soodhun, ex-Minister of Housing and Lands) is questionable. iii, Access to justice for the Applicants and, at large, for 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 IRS, 22 RES and 7 PDS (Annex 23, Annex 24, Annex 25) and at least ten Resort Hotels. If this kind of development was beneficial for local communities, existing social issues (education, housing, employment, health) would have already been solved. The Applicants 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). 11. In reply to paragraph 11 of RA1, which is denied, the Applicants aver that the Co-Respondent No. 1 has also committed itself to fully mitigate the loss of existing ESA Welland 76 in chapter 4, section 4.12 of the EIA Report, vide ‘Develop the site and fully mitigate its loss by creating @ new wetland system which ensures the important wetland functions are retained and enhanced”, The proposed mitigations must therefore include a wetland with 6 equivalent ecological zones comprising of a channel linked to the sea and salt marsh habitat (Annex 26). 12. In reply to paragraphs 12 to 15 of RAT, which are not admitted, the Applicants aver that; a. The proposed new wetland will not provide 6 equivalent ecological zones after the proposed project implementation equivalent of the ones provided by ESA Wetland 76, and b. No assessment has been done by Respondent No.1 with regards to tidal fluctuations by way of the open channel to the sea as well as its influence on the existing ecological zones. 1. In reply to paragraphs 16 and 17 of RA1, which are not admitted, the Applicants aver that the fact that Wetland ESA 76 is only man-made is disputed, It is clear for the Applicant's expert, Dr Grundling, that the channel and associated ecological zones predate the mining. (Annex 26) 14. In reply to paragraphs 18 and 19 of RA‘, which are not admitted, the Applicants aver that the mitigation measures of a Wetland is not just about the retention of volume function. It also fF Page 3 of 15 8