Original report by
Prakash Deenapanray, Adjunct Professor, Sustainability and Climate Change Programme Université des Mascareignes
Summary
After 57 years of constitutional experience, Mauritius faces a critical question: does our foundational document equip us to tackle climate change and environmental degradation? This analysis examines why Small Island Developing States like Mauritius need climate-ready constitutions and explores pathways for meaningful reform. The topic is very timely given the political will for pro-environmental constitutional reforms as contained in the ruling coalition’s political manifesto.
Key Findings
- Constitutional gap: Many SIDS constitutions, inherited from colonial administrations, lack environmental protections despite unique climate vulnerabilities
- Reform opportunity: Mauritius could integrate the 27 Principles of Sustainable Development into a revised constitutional preamble, creating legal pathways for environmental rights
- Immediate alternatives: Without full constitutional reform, creative judicial interpretation could expand “right to life” provisions to include environmental rights, following models from India and the US
- Incremental pathway: Strengthening the Environmental Act (formerly the Environmental Protection Act), widening legal standing, and engaging civil society can build momentum for deeper constitutional change while providing immediate environmental protections
With 57 years of constitutional experience, Mauritius has built a strong foundation for democratic governance. Yet the demands placed on this foundational document are evolving. As the country grapples with issues like environmental degradation, climate change, and the broader agenda of sustainable development, it’s worth asking: Does our Constitution equip us to face the future?
The Missing Link Between Sustainability and Constitutional Rights
Small Island Developing States (SIDS) like Mauritius are uniquely vulnerable. Our remoteness, small size, and ecological fragility make us especially exposed to the forces of climate change. Yet, despite the very real risks posed to our people and economy, constitutional protections for the environment remain strikingly absent, not just in Mauritius, but in many SIDS.
Why? In part, because many of our constitutions were inherited from colonial administrations, particularly the British common law system, which historically prioritised civil and political rights over social, economic, and environmental ones.
Today, as climate shocks intensify and sustainable development becomes a national imperative, this gap is no longer tenable.
Reframing Constitutional Reform for Environmental Futures
In recent years, constitutional reform in Mauritius has mostly focused on electoral systems and parliamentary representation. While these are crucial democratic questions, they overlook a critical challenge: how can we embed environmental protection and climate resilience at the heart of our governance structures?
One proposal is to revise the Constitution by explicitly integrating the Principles of Sustainable Development (PSD) into its framework. These 27 principles, grounded in international best practices, recognise the interconnectedness between human well-being and the natural environment. This would signal a powerful shift, placing sustainability at the centre of national policy-making, not as an afterthought, but as a constitutional imperative.
This is proposed to be done by adding a Preamble to the revised Constitution that would set out these principles as the moral and legal compass for policy formulation. It would also create legal pathways to enshrine the right to a healthy environment, recognise the rights of nature, and assign the State a positive duty to act on climate change.
Beyond Symbolism: The Case for Legal Innovation
Constitutional change is not just symbolic; it creates durable legal norms. And Mauritius can learn from international examples. Take India, where courts have used Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to interpret the article 21 of the constitution on the ‘right to life’ broadly, including environmental rights. In the United States, the Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is used to hold the State accountable for safeguarding a number of environmental interests covering, among others, water quality, navigation, wetlands, wildlife, nature parks and the atmosphere.
These approaches show that even without explicit constitutional amendments, much can be achieved through creative judicial interpretation and statutory reform, such as reinforcing the Environmental Act (EPA) or adopting new. For example, Mauritius could reinterpret the ‘right to life’ (Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution) to include a right to a healthy environment, a move that aligns with a growing global trend around the One Planet One Health concept, and the direct links between human wellbeing and a flourishing planetary biodiversity as made explicit in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
However, the real game-changer would be to make these rights explicit in the Constitution itself.
The Ecuador Example, and What We Can Learn
If Mauritius wants a bolder model, Ecuador’s Constitution is perhaps the most progressive in the world. It doesn’t just acknowledge nature; it gives nature legal standing. Its preamble links human and environmental well-being, embeds sustainable development principles into the constitution, and codifies the rights of nature and the duty of the State to address climate change.
Of course, Ecuador’s model is rooted in indigenous spiritual traditions, particularly the concept of Pachamama, or Earth Mother, which may not map directly onto the Mauritian context. But the ambition and innovation it represents offer valuable lessons for any country looking to integrate sustainability into its constitutional framework.
Taking the First (and Next) Steps
Constitutional reform is never easy. It’s often politically fraught, lengthy, and complex. But there are intermediary steps Mauritius can take while building consensus for deeper constitutional change:
- Strengthen the Environmental Act to clearly define the State’s duties as a trustee of the environment.
- Promote a liberal interpretation of ‘right to life’ to encompass environmental rights.
- Widen legal standing (locus standi) under Article 17 of the Constitution to allow any legal person to act on behalf of the environment. A recent positive ruling of the Privy Council (https://www.jcpc.uk/cases/jcpc-2023-0070#judgment-details) on the issue can be used to expedite this proposed change.
- Engage civil society and the public early and consistently in the reform process, ensuring legitimacy and inclusivity.
What We Risk by Waiting
Ultimately, without bold reform, we risk relying on a conservative interpretation to ‘right to life’ and outdated legal frameworks to respond to 21st-century crises. As climate change accelerates and ecosystems degrade, the costs of inaction, social, economic, and environmental, will only grow.
Mauritius has an opportunity to become a regional and even global leader by creating a Constitution that reflects our deep dependence on, and responsibility toward, the natural world.
Because in the end, protecting nature is not just about saving the planet, it’s about safeguarding the very foundations of human life.
Other research by the author:
Deenapanray, Prakash NK. “Increasing the ambition of mitigation action in small emitters: the case of Mauritius.” Climate Policy 21.4 (2021): 514-528.
Koenig, Xavier Gaston Hervé and Meisel, Nicolas and Deenapanray, Prakash N. K., Generating Societal Value from Natural Capital on Corporate-Owned Land: A Real Estate Case Study from Mauritius.
Available at SSRN:https://ssrn.com/abstract=5357658 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5357658
Original report: Prakash Deenapanray and Sachin Mulloo (2022), Constitutional Changes Related to the Environment, Climate Change, and Sustainable Development in the Republic of Mauritius – SCCP Working Papers WP 2022/1, Sustainability and Climate Change Programme (SCCP), Université des Mascareignes, Mauritius.
Main photo from Freepik
Charles Telfair Centre is an independent, nonpartisan not for profit organisation and does not take specific positions. All views, positions, and conclusions expressed in our publications are solely those of the author(s).
