Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ON
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT
NEW MAURITIUS HOTELS LIMITED RESORT HOTEL
AT LES SALINES RIVIÈRE NOIRE
By Platform Moris Lanvironnman
For all reasons and arguments stated in the present Note, we are of the opinion
that any request for additional information will not be sufficient to have the EIA
report conform to Clause 18 (2) of the EPA without significant redrafting of the
various chapters.
Platform Moris Lanvironman therefore calls upon the Ministry
of Environment to:
Reject the application for an EIA licence for the proposed Beach Resort
Hotel.
Reject any proposal for the constructionof jetties, coastal works including
dredging works, creation of bathing experience in the lagoonar water,
any marine structure including mooring, pontoons etc. at Les Salines
until the pertinent marine studies are carried out to investigate the causes
of the coastal erosion at La Preneuse and its environs.
As the authority vested with the stewardship of the Environment as per
Environmental Protection Act, commission a Strategic Environment
Assessment (SEA) for the Development of Les Salines Peninsula.
For the sake of transparency and good governance, disclose on their
website all requests for additional information and the replies of the
Promoters.
1. Preamble
1
Website http://environment.govmu.org/English/eia/Pages/EIA-Reports.aspx
last consulted on 21 May 2018.
http://environment.govmu.org/English/eia/Documents/Reports/2017/2712-hotel%20les%20salines/apendi.pdf
2
Note: As disclosed in the EIA report, the Project includes sixty
(60)BeachcomberBrandedApartments,mixof2and3bedrooms(150roomstotal) and as per
section 1.3.1 of the EIA report it is stated that “It is also worth noting that the proposed
Beachcomber Branded Apartments may under a separate application to the Board of
Investments (BOI) be incorporated into an Invest Hotel Scheme (IHS)”
1.8 The comments made on the EIA report in this Note are based solely on
information disclosed in the said report. The Promoters and their EIA
Consultant bear the sole responsibility of failure to disclose the requisite
information as laid out in the EPA.
2.2 A SEA for the Les Salines Peninsula would have identified the
environmental and ecological character of the Les Salines Peninsula that need to
be preserved with no or minimum human intervention; these environmental
constraints would then have been part of the conditions of any lease agreement.
2.3 The inclusion of the preservation of environmental and ecological character
as conditions of the lease agreement a priori would not only have ensured that a
level playing field is assured but also reduced the risks of undue pressure from
politicians on civil servants to compromise environmental assets on the ground of
„national economic development‟.
2.4 For the Promoters, this ensures a level playing field if environmental and
ecological constraints are already determined as most often Promoters must
remedy or bear the costs of environmental solutions for untested policy decisions
that they may identify only during the preparation of the environmental impact
assessment.
2.5 The proposed hotel development project puts the above issues to test as will
be shown below.
3
Platform Moris Lanvironnman (PML) has been advocating the reintroduction of the SEA in the
EPA which was removed from EPA following the promulgation of the Business Facilitation Act of
October 2006; the most recent occasion being in its submission and proposals in the pre-budget
consultations.
3.4 It is surprising to note the omission from the above list of a representative of
the Ramsar Committee, given that wetlands had been identified within the Les
Salines Peninsula.
3.5 At the first meeting, the Promoters “…presented a potential option for the
creation of a beach / bathing experience, through the dredging of parts of the
shallow water in front of the hotel site, and the creation of offshore breakwaters,
as indicated in Figure 2…”
3.6 As summarised in points 2 and 3 of sub-section 1.4.1.1, there appeared to be
a general consensus between the Prime Minister‟s Office (PMO) and the
Department of Environment (DoE) on one side and the Promoters on the other
side, that dredging of the intertidal zone will have significant impacts on the
habitat/ecosystems.
3.7 It appeared, as reported in point 4, that the idea of creating an “inland
beach/lagoon” was mooted by PMO/DoE, which considered it as “…an option
which may offer ecological credibility with the intertidal zone remaining largely
intact...”
3.8 But the Promoters had an additional prerequisite as stated in point 5,namely:
“...boat access to the lagoon at all tidal conditions was an essential
component to a hotel project…”
3.9 The Promoters went further to state the following (point 6):
“Beachcomber mentioned that without an attractive bathing experience and
without boat access to the sea, there could be no Beachcomber hotel project
at this site.”
3.11 According to what is reported in the EIA report, it appeared that the above
option “… was generally well received…”.
3.12 But the above statement surprises us; it is simply astounding that the
representatives of the Ministry of Environment (MoE) and DoE did not raise any
questions on the presence of a wetland that would require backfilling to
accommodate some of the proposed hotel components. It is recalled that
MoE/DoE commissioned the technical report on Environmentally Sensitive Areas
dated 2009. It is not reported in the EIA report whether DoE/MoE raised any
concerns on the presence of the wetland on the freehold part of the Site, but if this
is not the case, then MoE/DoE has failed in their duty of stewardship of the
environment as the ESA report of 2009 clearly identifies a wetland of
conservation Category 1, having high conservation value, on the freehold part of
the Site (see section 3.4.4 of the EIA report).
3.13 On the other hand, one would have expected the Promoters to carry out an
environmental screening at least with all the options prior to their presentation to
the same Authorities; but regrettably this has not been the case.
4.1 We dispute the statement made in the EIA report that a Resort Hotel must
have access to sea bathing experience/lagoonar access etc.
4.2 The EIA Consultant should know better that there is at least one example in
Mauritius where a Beach Resort Hotel is not dependent upon sea bathing
experience/lagoonar access in front of their beach front. Indeed, Le Chaland
5.2 Should each hotel Site, while meeting the same environmental conditions,
request the same „attractive bathing experience and boat access to the sea” as
prerequisite to the development of the Site, we might end up having several jetties
crisscrossing the lagoon, etc. On what grounds will the Authorities reject or accept
the other applications?
6. Coastal Erosion
6.1 Beach/coastal erosion is a phenomenon observed at several places around
the island.
6.3 Unconfirmed reports suggest that the dredging of the estuary of La Balise
Marina has removed more than three times the volume of sediments than
originally planned. DoE should be in a position to confirm this as part of their
Environmental Monitoring at construction. Do the dredging works of the estuary
impact on the sediment transport processes?
6.4 It has been reported that as early as 2016, the Management of La Balise
Marina applied to DoE to carry out maintenance dredging; this can be confirmed
by DoE. Is the dredged estuary acting as a sediment sink/trap?
6.5 Since no study has been reported on sediment transport in the lagoon and
sea in the vicinity of the proposed marine works as well as regionally, and in the
light of the above, not only should an application for dredging works not be
entertained but the same should also be applied to the construction of jetties and
other marine structures until the completion of such study.
6.6 It must be noted that proposed jetties, beach/lagoon cleaning for bathing
experience, floating pontoon etc. that promote lagoon water flow perturbations,
are extremely important factors in beach erosion.
7.2 The EIA report should have assessed the impacts of all the proposed marine
works (jetties, moorings, platforms, beach cleaning etc.) on beach sand genesis,
factors to take into consideration for this area include inter alia:
8.2 According to the Lease Agreement, the Lessee is Les Salines Golf &Resort
Limited incorporated with the Registrar of Companies on 26th day of August
2005 – company No 58187.
8.3 The EIA report is mute on the relationship between Les Salines Golf Resort
Limited and New Mauritius Hotels Ltd, the Promoters of the Project.
4
Bold in Lease Agreement
10.3 Hence in our opinion the site plan disclosed in Appendix D of the EIA
report does not conform to the requirements of the EPA.
11.1 Based on the information disclosed in the EIA report, it is apparent that
there are serious inconsistencies in the drawings and the description provided in
the EIA report as highlighted below.
11.5 Assuming that as stated in the same section, an extent of 1ha5087m2 has
been the object of a land swap between New Mauritius Hotels and the Ministry of
Lands and Housing (no supporting document given in the EIA report).
12.1 As per lease agreement given in Appendix C of the EIA report, all of the
drawings including the masterplan given in Appendix A do not show a clear track
of not less than 60cm wide running along the boundaries of the leased land.
Indeed the following Article of the Lease Agreement have clearly not been
observed:
Article 11- Clear Space along boundaries
“The Lessee shall keep open and maintain on the land leased a clear
track of not less than sixty (60) centimetres6 wide running along the
boundaries of the land leased”.
Furthermore, Article 12- Failure to clear space long boundariesof the signed lease
Agreement clearly stipulates that
“If the Lessee fails to keep the clear track provided under Article 11, the
Lessor shall cause the boundaries to be clear and the cost of the clearing
shall be recovered from the Lessee.”
12.2 The Promoters have not respected Article 11 of the Lease Agreement and it
can be deduced from the masterplan (as well as other drawings) that some of the
hotel components lie on the boundary of the leased land.
6
Bold in Lease Agreement
13.1 The EIA report recognises the presence of a wetland on the proposed Hotel
Development Site (freehold), yetit appears that at the Meetingof 1 September
2017 at Ministry of Housing and Lands as reported in the EIA report (section
1.4.1.2 of EIA report) the issue of backfilling of the wetland to accommodate
some components of the proposed hotel, was not raised at all as stated previously.
13.2 Although this wetland is, according to the EIA report, a man-made wetland,
the Technical Report on Freshwater Wetlands (June 2009)classifies ESA Wetland
76 as a Category 1 Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) having High
Conservation value. The Technical report, as quoted in the EIA report, states that
the “Wetlands within this classification have high biodiversity and are relatively
intact with respect to habitat degradation, often supporting endangered plant
species.” The EIA report further states that “the first function of this wetland isits
richness in native biodiversity and migrant birds in particular, due partly to its
significant un-fragmented length.” (Section 3.4.4)
13.3 Aside from its function as a biodiversity habitat, ESA Wetland 76 also
plays a water purification and filtration function that contributes to protect the
lagoon.
13.4 Though recognising all this, the EIA report does not provide an adequate
justification for the back-filling of this Category 1 Wetland and the creation of
a new wetland system in as much as it has not
13.5 The above constitute major shortcomings of the EIA report which thereby
fails to demonstrate how the major adverse impact of backfilling Wetland 76 will
be transformed into a “moderate adverse impact during the implementation of the
works and a neutral impact in the long term” and how the proposal for
development will contribute to maintaining and enhancing the character of the
area as stated in Section 1.5.3.1.
15.1 The intertidal zone at Les Salines Rivière Noire is a highly sensitive area
and holds a valuable ecosystem. In the nearshore, seagrass is present and the
seafloor consists of “fine brown sediment that is easily uplifted in the water
column to create very turpid waters”. Close to the water channels far from the
shoreline, “the areas was less turbid” and had “live corals and more brown
macroalgea”. (Marine Biodata Survey – Appendix K)
15.2 A 100m T-shaped jetty, 2 pontoons and 10 anchoring buoys are proposed as
the Promoter argues that it needs boat access to the lagoon at all tidal conditions
and that it is important for it to have “direct access for lagoon based activities”
such as “boat trips, snorkelling, diving, fishing, dolphin watching etc.” (Section
4.10.1)
15.5 Although dredging of the site has been ruled out, part of the beach – of an
area of 12,450 m2 as per Drawing in Appendix E, EIA-015 -will be “cleaned” and
sand-capped to create a bathing and paddling area in the intertidal zone (Section
4.10.2). It is not demonstrated how silt from upstream as well as silt-laden
sediment from the surrounding rivers and streams will be prevented from
contaminating the proposed sand-capped bathing area.
15.6 Regarding the creation of this lagoon bathing area, the origin of the silt and
the estimated frequency of “beach cleaning” operations over time are not given.
Furthermore beach cleaning appears benign, but systematic removal of shells,
corals and other lagoon debris have important beach erosion roles. In the past,
hotels systematically clear tonnes of organic and calcareaous material from
beaches, day in day out, year in year out, then complain that beaches disappear.
15.8 A major issue on the beaches along Salines, are the “haches d‟armes” and
other foot-cutting molluscs buried in the sand. There is a tendency to see their
removal as part of the “cleaning” process to maintain the proposed lagoon bathing
areas as well as paddling activities. Again, as a cumulative experience, their
removal will affect water quality and the ecology of the beaches. A pre-
development survey on the distribution and abundance of all the sessile lagoon
plants and animals have not been carried out as part of the baseline survey and
monitoring of their population should be used as a gauge of lagoon health in years
to come.
15.9 Works and activities are planned at both ends of the lagoon at the site
without their impacts having been sufficiently assessed. Seagrass beds are not
only rich habitat but are also carbon stores and contribute in attenuating waves,
enhance sedimentation and prevent erosion. It is crucial therefore that in this
highly ecologically sensitive area the condition of the seagrass beds is maintained
by minimising - or better, forgoing - intervention and activities that will cause
turbidity and damage to the seagrass.
15.10 We consider that the information disclosed in the EIA report on the
proposed sea activities on the marine environment and the assessment of the
impacts and sufficiency of mitigation measures are not in conformity to
Clause 18(2) of EPA.
16. Maximum Probable Sea water Level Rise and the Insufficiency of
30m setback
16.1 The maximum probable sea water level rise has been estimated in the EIA
report (see section 3.5.3) as 1.10m re MSL which in fact should have been +1.4m
AMSL as the estimation wrongly states that the maximum sea level rise under
high water spring tide as +0.3m instead of +0.5m and the non-inclusion of the
effect of coastal piling up due to wind, even under cyclonic condition reported to
be a maximum of +0.1m.
16.2 Hence mean sea level rises during cyclones will allow waves of around
1.5m to propagate in the lagoon and reach the beach with consequent risk of
flooding.
16.3 Assuming that as reported in the EIA report that the swash line observed at
Pointe du Tamarin, reaching the beach at +1.64m as a first estimation, then as per
16.4 Consequently, taking into account additionally the effects of sea level rise
due to global warming, the 30m setback from High Water Mark appears
insufficient to mitigate flood risks of the proposed hotel.
16.5 Hence, based on the information disclosed in the EIA report, a setback of
30m from the high water mark is insufficient to prevent flooding of at least
some areas of the proposed hotel. Again this is a significant shortcoming of
the EIA report.
17.2 The Crystal lagoon - for which the amount of water it will contain is not
stated in the EIA report -will use water from the drilled intake borehole and will
require 100m3/d of borehole water (assuming it has sea water characteristics) for
daily top-up (see Figure 17 of the EIA report).
17.3 The proposed desalination plant will produce 600m3/d of desalinated water.
The various sections in the EIA report that pertain to desalination plant are in the
main:
Section4.8.3
Appendix G: Factual Report for Borehole Drilling and Pumping Test
Salines Pilot- Riviere Noire- November 2012
Appendix I: Desalination Plant by PROMINENT- 01.12.2017
17.4 Below we shall demonstrate some blatant inconsistencies, misleading data
and parameters used and significant deviations associated with the proposed
desalination plant and the use of raw water from the proposed drilled borehole.
17.5 Water Quality of the proposed intake borehole for the Desalination
Plant
7
Note: The units of several parameters in Figure 16, including for COD and BOD 5 are wrongly
reported – please refer to Laboratory test results for correct units.
8
Note: As per figure 17 of the EIA report, provision is made for brine dilution using 2,100m 3/d of
the same water from the borehole water intake; as this will reappear as a wastewater with COD
and BOD5 in excess of discharge permissible standards for these parameters; the diluted brine will
have to be treated – hence the assumption that all 3,700m3/d of treatment of borehole raw water.
18.1 The EIA report lists two sources of road traffic generated the construction
phase (see section 5.3.1) :
Transportation of construction workers
Transportation of imported construction material, i.e, ready mixed
concrete, reinforcement, road materials and other construction
material
18.2 Impact receptors are mentioned to be “The residents of the dwellings due
east of the proposed development”
18.3 The Promoters propose three mitigation measures before concluding that
“The potential road traffic impacts during construction are therefore assessed
as Minor Adverse.” (5.3.1 last para.)
18.4 However, the EIA report estimates the volume of material needed for
raising the site up to the “required level of +3.0m ASML in the vicinity of the
roads and buildings.” as around 100,000 m3 (see section 4.8.13) but fails to
indicate the source(s) thereof.
18.5 Based on the reported volume of backfill required being around 100000m3
and assuming a maximum of 30m3 per lorry trip, 3 300 one-way trips of backfill
material will be needed over a maximum period of two months. It is known that
the Black River coastal road is congested along several stretches throughout the
day.Hence it can be surmised that traffic will be severely impacted during the
construction phase of the proposed hotel. The conclusion reached in the EIA
report as to traffic impact being “Minor Adverse” is erroneous.
19.1 The hotel site and the adjoining area contain structures and buildings with
heritage value. The EIA report states that the part of the salt pans still in operation
will be preserved and remain operational.
of the heritage value of the salt pans and of the material used in their
construction, in this case cut stones;
of the impact of the project on the Batterie de l‟Harmonie.
20. Conclusions
20.1 This Note has demonstrated that the EIA report lacks qualitative and
quantitative analysis, is deficient in baseline data, is deficient in scientific and
technical arguments, does not provide true and fair assessments of the
environmental benefits or effects of the proposed undertaking and overall it
simply does not conform to requirements of Clause 18(2) of EPA.
20.2 True, the EIA report abounds with wide and sweeping statements on
protection of ecological character, conservation, and development of biodiversity,
etc. but with all the deficiencies, inconsistencies and shortcomings presented, the
EIA report fails the test of scrutiny of Clause 18(2) of the Environmental Protect
Act (2002) as amended in 2008.
20.4 The serious issues related to the conducting of the EIA report itself, the lack
of baseline information, discrepancies, poor understanding of the
engineering/environment interactions, contradictory statements, poor
methodology, significant errors, inaccuracies and omissions, and above all the
levity with which environmental concerns and impact assessment have been dealt
with in the EIA report are simply overwhelming and in any event do not conform
to the requirements of Clause 18 (2) of EPA.
20.5 For all reasons and arguments stated above, we are of the opinion that any
request for additional information will not be sufficient to have the EIA report
conform to Clause 18 (2) of the EPA without significant redrafting of the various
chapters.
20.7 Reject any proposal for the construction of jetties, coastal works including
dredging works, creation of bathing experience in the lagoonar water, any marine
structure including mooring, pontoons etc. at Les Salines until the pertinent
marine studies are carried out to investigate the causes of the coastal erosion at La
Preneuse and its environs.
20.8 As the authority vested with the stewardship of the Environment as per
Environmental Protection Act, commission a Strategic Environment Assessment
(SEA) for the Development of Les Salines Peninsula.
20.9 For the sake of transparency and good governance, disclose on their website
all requests for additional information and the replies of the Promoters.