Environment, Development and Sustainability

Freshwater resource availability in SIDS, including Mauritius, is on the verge of becoming a major constraint to socio-economic development. A freshwater vulnerability assessment was undertaken for the period of 2000–2015 to understand the present vulnerability of the water systems in Mauritius and a future vulnerability estimation. Currently, the freshwater sector has been classified as a moderately vulnerable sector with a Freshwater Vulnerability Index (FVI) of 0.36–0.38 derived from a resource availability of 1091–1184 m3/capita, a coefficient of rainfall variation of 0.206–0.220, a water exploitation rate of 72–76% and ecological degradation of 30–39% for the period of 2000–2015. For the period of 2020–2050 under a business as usual scenario, the freshwater sector remained in a moderate-vulnerability region whereby the water exploitation rate was found to be the most affected vulnerability parameter with an increase to 95% exploitation by 2050. Under the effects of climate change, the FVI increased to a range of 0.38–0.44 indicating a shift from moderate- to high-vulnerability region and the findings also indicate that the country is likely to enter into a water scarcity region (water availability of < 1000 m3/capita) by 2030 and face overexploitation of water resources (water exploitation rate > 100%) by 2040. For all three scenarios, the resource stress category showed the highest contribution on the calculated FVI with a share of contribution of 33–38% to the current FVI, 34–38% to the predicted FVI for a business as usual scenario and 40–43% to the predicted FVI under the effects of climate change.

The good governance of institutions and regimes requires accountability suited to the particular context of each institution and regime. The paper examines the nature of accountability in climate change governance using the Caribbean region as a case study. In doing so, the paper makes two original contributions. First, using insights from the environmental governance literature, it presents a conceptual framework that categorises the types (levels, relationships and mechanisms) of accountability in governance that can be used to test accountability. The accountability framework comprises two levels (internal/external accountability); four relationships (normative, relational, decision and behavioural); and four mechanisms or processes through which accountability can be exercised (certification, monitoring, participation by stakeholders in the overseeing of projects and self-reporting). Second, through an analysis of survey and interview responses from Caribbean climate change experts, it reports on the nature of accountability in climate change governance in the context of Caribbean Small Island Developing States. To do this, first it identifies the actors involved in Caribbean climate governance at the regional and national scales. Then, using the framework, it examines which levels, relationships and processes exist within and between climate governance regional institutions, international partners, government agencies, non-governmental organisations and the private sector for climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. The paper draws two main conclusions: first, generally actors valued accountability as a good governance norm. Secondly, limited resources and the perception that using the accountability mechanisms will retard policy implementation led to low levels of accountability in practice. Finally, the study examined how accountability can be enhanced in the climate change sector by ensuring that each of the elements of the framework is operationalised for both state and non-state climate change projects.