INTHE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE APPEAL TRIBUNAL */ lication unde A i Environmental and Land Use Appeal Tribunal Act 2012) \ Inthe matter of 1, David SAUVAGE 2. Stephan GUA 3. Kugan PARAPEN APPLICANTS vis 1. New Mauritius Hotels Limited, 2 Les Salines Golf & Resort Limited. RESPONDENTS Inthe presence of: 1, The Minister of Social Security, National Solidarity, and Environment and Sustainable Develepment (Environment and Sustainable Development Division), ‘The Henourable Marie Joseph Noél Etienne Ghislain 'SINATAMBOU, of Kan 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). 3. The Ministry of Agro-Industry and Food Security. (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. Lam 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 8. 2. The Applicants have taken cognizance of the affidavit dated 15% February 2019 declared by Mr. Kevin Runomaun on behall of the Co-Respondent No.3 (*CRSA1"), in reply tothe first Afidavit of the Applicants dated 24% January 2019 (‘AAT’). 8. Save as is hereinafter expressly admitied, each and every averment contained in CRGAL 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 CRA1. o & atte2280 REPLY TO PaELIMNARY OBJECTIONS 5. In reply to paragraphs 2, 2() and 2(l) of CAA, 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 consultave process with the Co- Respondents No. 1 and 2 and made representations to them tothe effect thatthe EIA Licence should not be granted. Nevertheless, the Co-Respandents No. 1 and 2 granted the EIA 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 per the terms of the Environment Protection Act 2002. 7. The Applicants aver that they thus have sufficient interest inthe matter to challange the decision of the Co-Respondents No. 1 and 2 as they are aggrieved by the decision to grant the EIA Licence. The Applicants therefore also have the Necessary locus standi to seek injunctive relief from the Tribunal 8. The Applicants move that the preliminary objection of the Co-Respandent No. be 0 aside. With costs. REPLY TO MERITS '9. The Applicants take note of paragraphs S and 4 (a) of CRAY, 10.1n reply to paragraph 4(b) of CRSA\, the Applicants aver that the construction of proposed new wetland will adversely Impact the ESA Welland 76 inasmuch as; The issue of “proposed new wetland” Is intrinsically related to he existing ESA Wetland 76 disruption; |i. Condition 95 of E1A license does not clearly mention whether he existing ESA ‘Wetland 76 shall remain intact during the creation of the proposed new wetland; Condition 95 of EIA license does not clearly mention whether he existing ESA Wetland 76 shall remain intact unil the Ramsar Committee emit any approval; iv. The Condition 35 of EA Licence does not clearly mention whether the Ramsar Committee will deliver a confirmation that the proposed new wetland is functional; ¥. Undertakings to be carried out for the proposed new wetland creation, and for ito be full functional, wil adversaly impact the ESA Wetland 76; a) Allthe drainage/outlet systems, necessary forthe proposed new wetland to ’be “lly functional" will modify the hydrologial influences on ESA Wetland 76, thus adversely impact ESA Welland 76; BRns! b) All the landscape changes, necessary for the proposed new wetland to be “fully tunetionat” in the vicinty on ESA 76 will modify the hydrological influences of ESA 76, thus adversely impacting the ESA Wetland 76; ©) The relocation and transplantation of native and endemic vegetation of the ESA Welland 76, necessary for the proposed new welland to be “Ylly functional wil adversely impact ESA Wetland 76; ) The relocation and transplantation of ESA Welland 76 attendant biodiversity, necessary for the proposed new wetland to be “ullyfunctionar" will mpact ESA Wetland 76. 11. The Applicants take note of paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of CRSA 12.In reply to paragraph 8 of CRSA, the Applicants aver that same has been ‘communicated by later dated 18" of January 2019 to the Ramsar Convention ‘Secretariat, the IUCN Director General and copied to the Minister of Co- Respondent No. 3 (Annex 28), with corresponding acknowledgement receipts (Annex 29), 18:The Applicants take note of paragraph 9 of CRA1, and aver that the set of ‘documents was hand delivered othe office of Co-Flespondent No.3 on 3 January 2019 and not on 4" January 2018. 14.The Applicants take note of paragraph 10 of CRSA. 15.In reply to paragraph 11 (a) of CRA1, the Applicants aver that:- 2. Its not for the Respondents to decide what is of “National Interest" for the ‘country; b. ESAs preservation and restoration should be a considered by Government as of prime National Interest for the people of the Republic of Mauritius; ‘&. The notion of National Interest is much broader than what the Respondents seem to be refering to; 4d. The proposed hotel project al Les Salines, Riviére-Noire isnot a public project and therefore cannot per se be considered as being of National interest; €. There has been no declaration by the Co-Reespondents thal the hotel project is of national interest; {Inthe case the Government or Co-Respondent No. 1 has declared or dectares that the project is of "National Interest’, the Appellants aver that the Co- Respondent No. 1 would be acting beyond his discretion and ultra vires on Unreasonable grounds; 9. The EIA Report chapter 4 section 4.12 Wetland creation and enhancement” is biased in favour of the Respondents because it does not enumerate 2 fll list ‘of possible options; it completely ignores a reasonable option that would satisty| both Government policy in terms of development and BROS policies Cconceming ESAs, that isto develop the project more in-land and thus preserve ESA Welland 76 from any iremediable damage. we fe