Ecotourism and ecologics
- By The Rambler
- Published 20th September, 2007
A flood of ink is being made to invade the shores of Ilot Gabriel these days. From complete slumber and oblivion, this tiny islet off the north coast of Mauritius, has suddenly woken up to the dazzling lights of conflict and controversy.
What is all that hurly-burly about? It would seem that all this ado is finally about something after all. As the noise and din of protest advances, it is becoming more and more apparent that what is at stake is the pecuniary interest of a few promoters who have been denied the opportunity of promotion. And thus, a battle of purely financial interest is being fought on the field of so-called ecology.
At the end of the day, when the battle will have been lost and won, the main protagonists will leave the battlefield and proceed in pursuit of other business interests, while the rank and file of “ecologists” and “environmentalists” will go home, their tails tucked between their legs, a sentiment of revolt against the government gnawing at their deflated egos.
But make no mistake about it, what is at stake is not the ecological balance of Ilot Gabriel, but very much the bank balance of a few people who have not been taken on board. The lease of the islet has slipped off their fingers and landed on the lap of somebody who is deemed more apt to be plucking tomatoes and chillies from the fields at Triolet or Trou aux Biches like his ancestors, or tilling sugar cane fields rather than promoting ecotourism at Ilot Gabriel.
Clearly, the army of those who pose as protectors of the environment have been taken for a big ride on a catamaran of duplicity and bad faith.
Many of them would be doing a better job by contributing to maintain the salubrity of the place where they live. They should refrain from littering the beaches and other places, stop smoking in public places; they could also start a campaign to stop the emission of dark smoke from certain buses and other vehicles.
Most of all, they should see to it that their houses and yards are always kept clean.
When board
members get bored
Enterprise Mauritius, with a sense of effortless superiority, can easily earn its rightful place within the most exclusive club of Rotten Institutions, reveals a News on Sunday investigation. This time thanks to these two key words: Boardroom Bonanza.
Like in all companies, board members are nominated according to a set of rules embodied in the companies’ constitutions. Shareholders have their say in the matter, depending on criteria set in their respective constitution. This slightly differs from parastatal bodies set up in virtue of an Act voted by lawmakers in Parliament and where the shareholder is the Government of Mauritius. And nomination of board members is clearly specified in the Act.
Both structures, according to experienced public and private sector managers, were designed to speed up the decision making process, allow for more flexibility in operational matters as CEOs, MDs or GMs, as chief accounting officers, can take managerial decisions whenever necessary, more so when cases of emergency are strongly felt.
Both structures are in contrast with the normal public administration system where procedures and decision making process can greatly handicap project implementation and follow-up actions. Matters can be worse if this process involves several ministries and departments.
For the business community in need of public services, sometimes things can cause havoc within boardrooms, particularly when the whole process is known to run only at the speed of a dodo.
Since some years, the principles of good governance, transparency and accountability have placed a bigger burden on Boardrooms. Company board members, according to the rules governing the above principles, can even be held individually responsible for any miscarriage of the rules regarding the principles of good governance, transparency and accountability. Sources well versed on the subject told this newspaper that “if serious cases of default are detected, they can even be sued individually in their capacity as directors/board members.” They explained that directors/board members are duty bound to uphold these principles and the latter have to act responsibly.
What is all that hurly-burly about? It would seem that all this ado is finally about something after all. As the noise and din of protest advances, it is becoming more and more apparent that what is at stake is the pecuniary interest of a few promoters who have been denied the opportunity of promotion. And thus, a battle of purely financial interest is being fought on the field of so-called ecology.
At the end of the day, when the battle will have been lost and won, the main protagonists will leave the battlefield and proceed in pursuit of other business interests, while the rank and file of “ecologists” and “environmentalists” will go home, their tails tucked between their legs, a sentiment of revolt against the government gnawing at their deflated egos.
But make no mistake about it, what is at stake is not the ecological balance of Ilot Gabriel, but very much the bank balance of a few people who have not been taken on board. The lease of the islet has slipped off their fingers and landed on the lap of somebody who is deemed more apt to be plucking tomatoes and chillies from the fields at Triolet or Trou aux Biches like his ancestors, or tilling sugar cane fields rather than promoting ecotourism at Ilot Gabriel.
Clearly, the army of those who pose as protectors of the environment have been taken for a big ride on a catamaran of duplicity and bad faith.
Many of them would be doing a better job by contributing to maintain the salubrity of the place where they live. They should refrain from littering the beaches and other places, stop smoking in public places; they could also start a campaign to stop the emission of dark smoke from certain buses and other vehicles.
Most of all, they should see to it that their houses and yards are always kept clean.
When board
Enterprise Mauritius, with a sense of effortless superiority, can easily earn its rightful place within the most exclusive club of Rotten Institutions, reveals a News on Sunday investigation. This time thanks to these two key words: Boardroom Bonanza.
Like in all companies, board members are nominated according to a set of rules embodied in the companies’ constitutions. Shareholders have their say in the matter, depending on criteria set in their respective constitution. This slightly differs from parastatal bodies set up in virtue of an Act voted by lawmakers in Parliament and where the shareholder is the Government of Mauritius. And nomination of board members is clearly specified in the Act.
Both structures, according to experienced public and private sector managers, were designed to speed up the decision making process, allow for more flexibility in operational matters as CEOs, MDs or GMs, as chief accounting officers, can take managerial decisions whenever necessary, more so when cases of emergency are strongly felt.
Both structures are in contrast with the normal public administration system where procedures and decision making process can greatly handicap project implementation and follow-up actions. Matters can be worse if this process involves several ministries and departments.
For the business community in need of public services, sometimes things can cause havoc within boardrooms, particularly when the whole process is known to run only at the speed of a dodo.
Since some years, the principles of good governance, transparency and accountability have placed a bigger burden on Boardrooms. Company board members, according to the rules governing the above principles, can even be held individually responsible for any miscarriage of the rules regarding the principles of good governance, transparency and accountability. Sources well versed on the subject told this newspaper that “if serious cases of default are detected, they can even be sued individually in their capacity as directors/board members.” They explained that directors/board members are duty bound to uphold these principles and the latter have to act responsibly.
