?You are a squatter along the high water mark of the sea of the above-mentioned plot of state land?. This is part of a ?Notice to squatter? issued last week by the ministry of Housing and Lands to 14 wall owners encroaching on the beach in Roches Noires. The government seems determined to enforce the law and have these walls demolished. Meanwhile, six targeted owners have entered an injunction in the Supreme Court asking that the planned demolition be suspended, adjoining that the case should be taken on its merits.

Among the points of these owners, who reject the term ?squatter? as they are in possession of a valid campement site lease: these walls have been made to protect the area, otherwise, ?the whole region would have found itself under water?. So are they really in the wrong?

In the injunction, the owners also argue that, during cyclonic conditions, the site is exposed to winds and increased waves and that the purpose of the walls is to prevent erosion. They also insist that, at the time of their erection, the walls were not illegal. Following this injunction, the pulling down has been postponed. ?This situation occurs in various parts of the island, not just there?, comments a source from the ministry of Environment. ?So you have to analyse each case carefully and in context.? Even if the State Lands Act did not exist at the time, by and large, ?most of these constructions were not made with a sound understanding of the beach dynamics and no clear environmental policy was established?. He adds that, without any construction, the beach would be naturally autoregulated.

In terms of maintenance, the authorities? priority has always been the public beaches. ?But we realised in 2003 a thorough study of the endangered coast. So we don?t close our eyes on portions of the shore that are managed under the high water mark régime.? If one sticks to the purely ecological point the authorities ?would welcome those that show goodwill and accept to manage the shore, without rendering it inaccessible, and protecting it according to the rules in force and environmental needs. The latter and according measures can?t be found without a scientific study?.

<I>?Anything that is scheduled for building in the shore vicinity has now to be closely scrutinized or reassessed before approval.?</I>

Then there is a new element that should be considered: sea level rise. This is a known fact to the inhabitants of Roches-Noires. But everywhere, it has modified some of the issues. New hazards, like surges, are pending concerning any projected construction. ?Anything that is scheduled for building in the shore vicinity has now to be closely scrutinized or reassessed before approval.? Among the procedures: a scientific expertise and an Environmental impact assessment.

In their injunction, the applicants suggest that they are in a good position to assess the threat to which the shore is exposed. In the same vein, they add they ?verily believe that it is the duty of the State of Mauritius to ensure that the applicants and people in similar circumstances are duly protected from soil erosion and flooding by putting anti-erosion walls to safeguard the people and the environment in general?.

The beginning of the polemic was yet not entirely based on environmental concerns. It was in response to numerous public complaints relating to the inaccessibility of public beaches that the Cabinet had set last September 14th an inter-ministerial committee to examine the whole issue. Last November, the committee supervised site visits in the region of Roches Noires to see at first hand the extent of the problem of inaccessibility to the beaches.

Recently, following the demolition of the walls of a ?campement? in Roches Noires, the ministry of Housing and Lands served a «Notice to Squatter» under Section 22 (3) of the State Lands Act to 14 other owners of the area. They were ordered to demolish their walls within 48 hours, otherwise exposing themselves to prosecution and, if found guilty, of imprisonment not exceeding five years.

Following this «Notice to Squatter,» six of the 14 targeted owners entered the injunction in the Supreme Court. The judge agreed on Thursday to their request. However, the authorities have taken steps to proceed with the demolition of walls built by the eight other owners.