Mauritius’ tourism revenues in Q1 of 2013 down by over 12 percent

MAURITIUS TOURISM REVENUES DOWN BY 12 PERCENT IN FIRST QUARTER

Figures just out about Mauritius’ tourism revenues, which show a decline of arrivals during Q1 of 2013 by 12.4 percent, have caused a storm of outrage across the island’s tourism sector, and from calls and emails it is clear that the knives are now out for those thought responsible for the reverse of fortunes of the Indian Ocean’s erstwhile tourism giant. While arrivals for the same period are still up by 1.5 percent, according to the same sources, it is clear that those tourists coming to Mauritius are not the heavy spenders compared to the island’s European core markets, which have again declined by a staggering 7.5 percent vis a vis the first quarter of 2012. Forecasts for the entire year 2013 are now being revised to just about 900.000, compared to earlier expectations of 1 million arrivals, projecting a critical occupancy drop for the resorts already struggling to stay within financially viable occupancy range.

‘I know you are often blamed as very negative towards MTPA, but from where I stand you have reported nothing but the truth. Our country’s tourism industry is led down a dead end road by the MTPA leadership. They have failed us. We have lost our leader position to the Maldives and the way things are going, Sri Lanka will overtake us this year to take the runner up spot for most tourist arrivals. Every action by Karl has failed to generate additional traffic. Our markets have seen that we used copy and paste for carnival and the festival of the sea and reacted. They are going to the original places where these activities were conceived and developed. For us in Mauritius all we have to show for is a lot of money spent and nothing in return.

When Seychelles in 2008/9 looked at a steep decline, they acted decisively. They removed those responsible and brought in a new team. We must do the same here and with no delay. If we want to survive as a tourism industry, fundamental change has to come. Our resorts are suffering from lower occupancies, the airlines are suffering from lower load factors if the new arrival projections become reality and that is the truth. We have to go back to our core strengths, and we have many or we would never have reached the top and stayed there for so long.

We got fabulous beaches, fabulous luxury 5 star resorts and we have a lot of history on Mauritius worth exploring. We have forests and sugar cane factories worth visiting, to see how rum is being made and our people are fundamentally friendly to tourists from abroad. We have golf, deep sea fishing, diving on offer and our air connections are world class too. Emirates comes twice a day, so we can be reached from anywhere around the world with one stop in Dubai. Air Mauritius was crowned as leading Indian Ocean airline and we are modernizing our airport. There is a lot to build on but we need new builders, a new contractor. The present people have failed Mauritius in a big way’ said a regular source with insight into the reality of the fragmented and divided tourism industry of the island.

Worth watching and waiting for those long expected and equally overdue changes it seems but for sure, Mauritius was and remains for many a favourite destination and is truly worth visiting. And those looking for special deals, this surely is the time to find excellent bargains and get a holiday of a lifetime without spending a lifetime of savings. Go Travel.

Not Leakey’s finest hour …

An opinion about the response to Save the Serengeti’s letter seeking clarification on the proposal for an elevated highway across the Serengeti.

LEAKEY DISCREDITS HIMSELF WITH RESPONSE ABOUT CONCERNS RAISED

Following the revelations that Dr. Richard Leakey had waded into the Serengeti Highway debate with a hair brained proposal to build a flyover highway across the migration routes of the wildebeest, did one of the world’s foremost Serengeti defense groups, Save the Serengeti write to him, expressing concerns over his statements and requesting clarification. Save the Serengeti is made up of renowned individuals, supported by leading conservation institutions, and is credited with encouraging factual debate over the initial proposals to build a highway across the Serengeti’s migration routes. In fact, StS is the voice of over 51.500 individuals and NGO’s and THE place where factual exchanges were facilitated since the group was formed in 2010 and which has provided a platform for conservationists from around the world standing together to ensure that Serengeti Must Not Die. The group’s letter is quoted verbatim here below:

Dear Professor Leakey,

It is with great concern that we have again learned of your support for an elevated highway across the Serengeti National Park.

Such a project is not only impractical in the extreme, it would undermine the very existence of the ecosystem we all wish to protect. The cost of constructing an overpass would be enormous to the point of being prohibitive. According to a former World Bank transportation expert with years of experience in East Africa, it would cost not forty percent more than a similar New Jersey highway, but up to ten times as much.

Instead of thirty miles in length, it would need to be much longer. As you know, the migration spans a large area outside of the park. Fifty miles is more like the required length. The Frankfurt Zoological Society concurs with us, stating:

“Just absolutely ridiculous from the cost side. We are talking billions. In Germany it is significantly more expensive 120 million € for 4 km! This reason alone, makes any further thinking useless.”

They cite the Danyang-Kunshan Bridge in China, which is 100 miles in length. It took 10,000 people four years at a cost of about $8.5 billion.

Here is how the transportation expert describes it:

The foundations and bridge piers would be poured on site, and then concrete precast beams, or steel beams, trucked in to support the concrete deck which would be cast on top of the beams. As for the design, it might be possible to get away with one lane each way, separated by a crash barrier, provided that passing places, a sideways expansion of the bridge, were installed at about 500 meter intervals. Service areas would have to be provided at about five kilometer intervals to allow vehicles to turn around.

The first requirement for such a massive project would be the building of a road to provide large quantities of resources and materials. There is no sand or gravel available in Serengeti, so all the material for the concrete would have to be trucked in. Large quantities of other materials, would need to be produced and transported. Where would the water come from? Camps and catering for hundreds or thousands of workers would have to be set up, with the likely result of a thriving bush meat trade, as commonly happens with such projects.

Adding to the cost is the fact that a highway would be constructed on black cotton soil that is unstable, particularly in the rainy season. Engineers say it would shift and move causing cement pillars to crack and fall. This is also a highly active volcanic area that includes earthquakes – a 6.0 was recorded in 2007.

Who then would bear the enormous expense of maintaining such a highway? Tanzania has so little money now that it can barely keep its electric grid running. Accidents and breakdowns are common in Africa. What happens when a huge truck jackknifes in the middle of an elevated road?

Construction would last years, with a large swath of destruction from heavy machinery and trucks – all this during several seasons of migration across this critical area.

Both the construction and the highway would have long term impacts. As pointed out by Andrew Dobson of Princeton University in his published study, habitat fragmentation of the Serengeti ecosystem would likely mean the collapse of the migration. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0016370

The project would be a terrible waste of scarce funds. What a huge opportunity cost this would represent, using funds that could be used for real development.

Who would visit the Serengeti during the years of construction? But not just construction would impact tourism, a huge international protest would cause a drop in tourism income and jobs. The Serengeti would be taken off the UNESCO World Heritage List. It would no longer be regarded as a unique wilderness area, but a monument to a useless engineering project. A priceless heritage would be irreparably scarred and ultimately lost.

Finally, the big question – why would one build such a project in the name of development when a superior alternative exists?

A highway to the south of the Serengeti would not only connect populations to the west of the park, it would benefit vastly more people, connecting the Lake Victoria region to the central and eastern parts of the country. http://www.savetheserengeti.org/?p=227

The advantages of such a route are clearly documented in a presentation by the Frankfurt Zoological Society. See the attached for a detailed socio-economic analysis.

What’s more, the government of Germany has offered to build local roads for communities around the Serengeti and the World Bank has offered help to build a southern route.

We trust that the facts speak for themselves – the tremendous impact of an elevated highway, tunnel, railway, any sort of commercial corridor, would be devastating to a place we all wish to preserve for future generations of Africans and visitors.

We urge you to join the Frankfurt Zoological Society, our organization and many others in supporting a southern route around the Serengeti.

Sincerely,

The two responses by email to the letter, seen by this correspondent but not cleared for publication by the recipients, can at best only be described as rude, offensive and condescending and at worst as fame gone to the head, a head swollen with an inflated ego or a head gone soft with age. Playing on the cheapest sentiments, otherwise perhaps found in bar conversation just before closing time when the discussants are sufficiently inebriated, the good Dr. Richard wasted no thought on the facts but instead opted to rant about unrelated issues and throw missives at Save the Serengeti. Instead of engaging with the substance of the proposals made by the Frankfurt Zoological Society for the southern route, which has received the full support of the German government, the World Bank and other development partners including offers for soft loans and grants to carry out a full feasibility study before building the alternative road, he decided to go on the offensive by throwing mud and calling the credentials of StS into doubt. Humility clearly is not something the good Dr. Richard has engrained in himself and as a result, the considerable professional respect hitherto accorded is now dented and will, should no substantive focused response still come forth from him, evaporate completely.

The internet has a great capacity for naming and shaming, and like the Tanzanian government has found out such flow of information prevails, even though that government has and continues to bedevil critics and opponents of their scheme to build a highway across the Serengeti and is calling them enemies of progress and worse. Through the Internet, pressure groups have the ability to garner global support for causes, enlist help to lobby key global institutions and in this case has it has played a major role to ground the highway project, at least until an ongoing court case at the East African Court of Justice to obtain a permanent injunction against the Tanzanian government, is decided.

Egomania has been the bane of many failures in the past to make conservation a centerpiece of a new global policy approach in how to protect crucially important ecosystems for future generations. It is reminiscent of the failure of CITES to not just totally ban the trade with ivory but challenge the main culprits by naming and shaming them. They got away because of, among other reasons, too many egos needing to be stroked of people who continue to sit on the fence or voice their opposition, because their egos have, or so they perceived it, been rubbed the wrong way. Like in school, there is a bad boy corner on the Internet too, and that is where the good Dr. Richard is headed for, unless he can come to terms that even he does on occasions talk utter rubbish. Time to make swift amends or else bear the stain of complicity in the attempt to ruin the Serengeti. Watch this space.

Etihad commences Amsterdam flights, takes over key service companies at Abu Dhabi airport

ETIHAD LAUNCHES AMSTERDAM FLIGHTS

Travelers from Nairobi / Kenya, presently the only East Africa destination Etihad, Abu Dhabi’s national airline is serving, now have the added option when travelling to Amsterdam to route via the capital city of the United Arab Emirates, as the airline launched flights to the Netherlands last weekend. The daily flights on Airbus A330-200 aircraft, which feature 22 business and 240 economy seats, are codeshared with KLM.

A few weeks ago did Etihad sign a comprehensive MoU and code share agreement with Kenya Airways, an almost natural development considering that KQ’s second largest shareholder KLM equally has developed strong commercial ties with Etihad since late 2012. While no member of any alliance, as yet, Etihad has developed their own concept of strategic partnerships, with shareholdings in Air Berlin, Air Seychelles, Air Lingus and Virgin Australia, and a similar deal is currently awaiting finalization with India’s Jet Airways.

There is growing speculation that Etihad may also take a significant shareholding in KLM/Air France, itself a lead member in the world’s second largest airline alliance SkyTeam, leaving space for yet more speculation if Etihad may eventually join that alliance or else opt to stick to their proven model of partnerships through shareholdings and commercial code share agreements.

Meanwhile has Etihad over the weekend also completed the takeover of the Abu Dhabi Airport Services, the Abu Dhabi Inflight Catering and the Abu Dhabi Cargo Company to have full control over the quality of services these previously state owned companies offer and which will in the future add significant revenue streams to the Etihad Group.

Tourism Uganda gets new board and the promise of the tourism levy becoming reality

JAMES TUMUSIIME APPOINTED NEW CHAIRMAN OF UGANDA TOURISM BOARD

In a marked departure from past practice, when often political considerations influenced the appointment of members of the Board of Directors of Tourism Uganda, has the Minister for Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities Hon. Maria Mutagamba announced a team of seasoned professionals comprising leading industry representatives to oversee, in what can only be hoped, the revival of Uganda’s tourism fortunes on a grand scale.

Chairman of the Board is Mr. James Tumusiime, a leading member of the publishing and media fraternity in Uganda, signaling a new partnership with the media in the making.

Also on the board now is the Executive Director of the Uganda Wildlife Authority Dr. Andrew Seguya, significant as much of Uganda’s tourism industry is based on wildlife experience and visits to the 10 national parks.

Similarly was Ms. Lilly Ajarova, the Executive Director of the Ngamba Island Chimpanzee Sanctuary appointed to serve an initial 3 year term on the board. Others are Mr. Roger Wamara, Sales and Marketing Manager of Qatar Airways in Uganda, Amos Wekesa, CEO of Great Lakes Safaris, Ismail Sekandi, Managing Director of Rwizi Arch Hotel in Mbarara and immediate former Executive Director of the Uganda Hotel Owners Association. From the government side were Mrs. Edith Kassaja-Kateme of the National Planning Authority appointed along with Mr. Michael Aliyo from the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.

Mr. Cuthbert Baguma, the Executive Director of Tourism Uganda, serves as an ex officio member and Secretary to the Board.

While announcing the appointments, the Minister also signaled a further significant change to the funding of the Uganda Tourism Board, when she indicated that the long overdue operationalisation of the Tourism Development Levy, provided for in the Tourism Act of 2008 but never, until now, made a reality, is due to be tackled in the next financial year 2013/14, which could turn the fortunes of Tourism Uganda around.

Long hampered by a lack of funding, inspite of regular verbal commitments to the sector, which has in recent years become a key economic activity for the country, Tourism Uganda’s budget allocations were barely enough to meet recurrent expenses and had promotional activities overseas restricted to attending just the most important tourism trade fairs, like ITB, WTM and a few others. When the levy becomes operational, an estimated 10 million US Dollars will become available for a range of tourism related activities, spelled out in the law and related regulations of the upcoming Tourism Development Fund, key among them financing the operations of Tourism Uganda. This will put Uganda, in terms of available marketing budgets, at par with other key destinations, not only in the region but the continent at large. Budget analysts expect that UTB will for the next financial year be allocated between 1.5 and 2 billion Uganda Shillings, a fraction of what industry observers consider the bare minimum, but with the levy now apparently becoming a reality, the long lasting financial woes of Tourism Uganda seem to be finally coming to an end.

A regular source, when discussing the appointments, provided this insight: ‘Finally we get a competent board with experience from across the entire industry. Airlines, hotels, safari operators, wildlife attractions, they are now all present at board level. But the best news is that the levy will become a reality now. As you know, for a long time there were these issues of who collects and where does the money go, and the industry was totally opposed to see the money go to the Ministry of Finance, because it would be used for alien purposes. If lucky we would get a fraction back. But like CAA collects airport service charge and uses it as they see fit to develop our airport, so should tourism have the same right to collect a levy and use it as the industry decides. You have some years ago already said that UTB should have between 1.5 and 2 million US Dollars as a marketing budget. The levy could substantially increase that now. Uganda can finally build on the top ratings we got from Lonely Planet and National Geographic and many other sources, naming us a leading adventure and safari destination. We can match such recognition with a presence at all key tourism trade fairs. The Adventure Travel Trade Shows in America for instance could bring us a lot of traffic. We can go into new and emerging markets like Eastern Europe and China and make our attractions known. The airlines are ready to bring extra capacity from such markets, especially our long standing partners like KLM, Kenya Airways, Brussels Airlines or BA but also those from the Gulf like Emirates and Qatar or Turkish Airlines. We might see new airlines wanting to fly to Entebbe even. These are the first rays of real hope tourism had in a long time and the sector will blossom from it’.

While all eyes will now be on the new board to see how they shape their agenda and implement it, at this moment in time it is congratulations to the newly appointed Board of Directors of Tourism Uganda and all the best for the work ahead in coming years.

Report demands action from Tanzanian government on China connection

POACHING REPORT DEMANDS GOVERNMENT ACTION ON CHINA CONNECTION

The following media report by Florian Kaijage is repeated here in full to have readers appreciate what others have to say about the poaching tsunami which has hit Tanzania:

Dar’s secret poaching report implicates China

BY FLORIAN KAIJAGE, 18th May 2013,

http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=54837

Investment relations between China and Tanzania have been cited in

elephant poaching in Tanzania, calling for serious government

intervention, a report on the elephant poaching crisis has revealed.

According to a well-detailed report authored by the Tanzania Elephant

Protection Society (TEPS) made available to the Guardian, though the

Chinese investments were important in the country’s economy and

development, they shouldn’t compromise country’s natural wildlife

conservation efforts.

The report — which states clearly the current rate of 30 elephants

killed every day and 850 elephants shot every month — poses

unprecedented risk of the country’s elephant population perishing in

the next seven years notes: “China is the number one investor in

Tanzania … but the majority of tusks exported illegally from Tanzania

end up in China due to the huge demand for Ivory in China” It

affirms: “Tanzania’s partnership with China is of great benefit to the

country’s economy and development but it must not be at the expense of

Tanzania’s vital natural resources and tourist industry … this

requires political will and strong leadership.”

The document, whose was availed to The Guardian recommends: “Tanzania

government should make investment from China and other countries

strictly conditional on China tackling its demand for ivory at home ,

and stronger law enforcement collaboration to halt the flow of ivory

from Tanzania to China.” Experts also recommended for the presence of

sniffer dogs working 24 hours at every port and airport.

In one of its four recommendations to the government, the report says:

“Ivory is a big business for major criminal … also involved in

trafficking drugs and violent crimes. The issue must be treated as a

serious crime which is a major threat to the nation. “These syndicates

are able to engage in corrupt practices to ensure that their

consignments are not subjected to law enforcement intervention in the

countries of origin, on transit and destinations. We hope thae

statistics presented would raise the hairs of the policy and decision

makers and cause them to quickly act to rescue the situation” says the

report.

Winding up debate on the 2013/2014 fiscal year, the Minister for

Natural Resources and Tourism, Khamis Kagasheki, said a kilogramme of

a tusk is traded at $1,000 at the international market, whereas a

kilogramme of rhino horn is worth $1 million, a revelation that the

poaching and illegal trade of natural resources involves people with

big money.

The report also recommends enactment of emergency laws providing for

sentences of up to 15 years imprisonment for illegal hunts of an

elephant or trading in ivory

Serengeti Highway in the news again as Leakey proposes ‘elevated highway’

SERENGETI HIGHWAY SUGGESTIONS BY RICHARD LEAKEY CALLED LUNATIC EXPRESS 2.0

Hitherto respected conservationist Dr. Richard Leakey earned himself howls of laughter, mockery and acid comments from around the world, when – beware the power of the internet – his suggestions to build an elevated highway across the Serengeti became more widely known and went viral among Serengeti supporters.

Leakey apparently repeated comments made much earlier already but quickly hushed up at the time, in a speech in the United States last week, that he felt an elevated highway across the Serengeti’s migration routes would be a viable solution. Leakey was quoted to have said during an international conference on poaching and wildlife related crimes at the Rutgers University ‘It would be a grand spectacle, to see animals migrating by underneath, and signal Africa’s commitment to wildlife. If I can drive over 30 miles of elevated highways in New Jersey, why not in the Serengeti?. Leakey then reportedly went on to accuse all and sundry to ‘Talk, Talk, Talk’ but failed to acknowledge that a viable and financeable option had been presented to the Tanzanian government by, among others, the German government and the Frankfurt Zoological Society, to build a road around the southern edges of the park instead of insisting to build a highway across the main migration routes of the Serengeti.

Leakey was saying that the cost of an elevated highway would only be 40 percent higher than a regular highway, clearly exposing a serious deficit in knowledge and understanding of the topographical situation of the route proposed by the Tanzanian government as well as the soil composition along the route, mainly the notorious black cotton soil. This soil type would require massive steel reinforced concrete pylons to be anchored very deep into the ground to avoid shifts of the structure when the soil gets soaked during the rainy season. Leakey also forgot to say how motorists, while driving, were to enjoy the views he proposed for the ‘grand spectacle’ safely, without driving over the rails and crashing into the migrating animals, unless he had the creation of major stopping points, perhaps including elevated restaurants and even hotels as found along European highways in mind, something environmentalist and truly committed conservationists would have a lot more to say about.

www.savetheserengeti.org, a conservation pressure group with more than 51.500 followers on their Facebook page, had in 2011 undertaken a study to show that significantly more people and population centres would be served by a southern road solution, but big mining business appears to insist on a direct access route connecting concession areas between the Serengeti and Lake Victoria with a route to the coast, dubbed by this correspondent as the ‘Corridor of Destruction’. (http://wolfganghthome.wordpress.com/2011/05/01/tanzania-conservation-breaking-news-the-corridor-of-destruction-from-the-coast-to-the-lake/).

One regular conservation source from Arusha immediately called the proposal ‘Leakey’s Lunatic Express’ while another, almost at the same time, had similar sentiments when calling it ‘Lunatic Express Reloaded 2.0’. ‘This is not a compromise. A costed compromise has been on the table when the data for a southern route was put to the TZ government. This is a lunacy and Leakey has done himself and his reputation no favours here. The cost, for one, would be massive and because of soil and topography a multiple of what a surface highway would cost. The Serengeti is not Jersey with flat surfaces. This is a hilly area, dissected by dry river beds, and the soft soil would require very very deep foundations. To top it, this is an earthquake prone area, so the construction would have to take this into account, driving the cost up even more. Not Leakey’s finest hour I must say’ did a source wishing to remain unnamed write in response to a request for a comment, since the news broke last Thursday. According to other conservation sources in Tanzania, requests for clarification to the Leakey Foundation went unanswered, at least by the time of uploading this article, though there is clearly little they can say in mitigation, unless their principal would be ready to withdraw his ill considered off the cuff remarks.

In comparison, the new Gotthard tunnel, the world’s longest, took the Swiss, experts in tunnel highways, some 15 years to complete at a cost of over 20 billion US Dollars, and covers a length of some 54 kilometres, a distance similar to the crossing of the Serengeti – this being said in case other brainiacs come up and try to float the tunnel version under the migration paths once again. The Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania had, in earnest, proposed a tunnel version in July 2011, giving the cost and technical challenges of their proposal apparently as little thought as Leakey now did with his elevated highway talk.

Meanwhile has the Tanzanian government made no binding firm commitments to spare the Serengeti of the highway, other than vaguely say it would build a gravel road, not a paved highway – for now that is – and has equally failed to conclusively state that the planned railway route from Tanga to a newly planned port at Musoma / Lake Victoria, would NOT run in parallel with the initially proposed highway route.

Much fodder for thought again in a fight which can only be equated to a fight of good and evil, or dark and bright forces, the good guys being the ones to preserve the Serengeti as the UNESCO World Heritage Site it is and honouring the Tanzanian nation’s founding father’s commitment to Prof. Grzimek of ‘Serengeti Must Not Die’ fame to preserve the Serengeti for future generations. Watch this space.

First off and now on again – the U-turns of Mauritius’ position on festivals

OFF AGAIN AND ON AGAIN – MORE U-TURNS BY MAURITIUS TOURISM CONFUSE MARKET

In yet another U-turn of sorts has the Mauritius Tourism Minister Michael Sik Yuen over the weekend announced that the Mauritius Tourism Promotion Authority will after all hold a festival later this year, known as the Festival of the Sea. Only a few weeks ago, as reported here at the time, did the same minister state before parliament that the flopped Carnival plus Shopping Festival last year would not be repeated, as the organization of such events was, or so it was understood by the public, beyond the capacity of MTPA. At the time it was felt by many in Mauritius that such an admission of failure was plain and simple a catastrophe for the hugely important tourism sector, as it, in the words of one ardent critic of the tourism administration in Port Louis was ‘reducing our past standing as the Indian Ocean’s leading tourism destination to ashes. If our tourism authority is not capable of organizing a simple festival, they have no business to be in this business’, a stinging retort if not an outright slap, though not a single incident as the opposition against the institutional fragmentation of the sector is growing.

Only last week did the Maldives take the lion’s share of awards and recognitions during the annual World Tourism Awards, including being named as the region’s best tourism board, considered to be a personal failure by Karl Mootosaamy, the CEO of MTPA, who had vigorously campaigned to have Mauritius, and by prolongation himself, to be crowned the winner. Mauritius also lost the race for the highest number of tourist arrivals to the Maldives, attributed by sections of the tourism industry to the failure of MTPA to develop a compelling new concept of promoting the island and build on the considerable strength of past excellence. ‘MTPA has gone stale, their leadership has run out of ideas. To rescue tourism Mauritius has to do what the Seychelles did between 2008 and 2010, remove the deadwood, inject energetic and inspired new people and make the authority part of all of us, not just a domain for a selected few with the right political connections. Let us copy that revival of the Seychelles Tourism Board, not their ideas on festivals which will look to the market like we steal their ideas and are unable to create our own events’ roared a regular contributor from Port Louis when asked to comment on these latest developments.

Like the ultimately failed carnival idea, the Festival of the Sea in Mauritius concept too appears to be copied and pasted from neighbours Seychelles, which has scheduled SUBIOS, The Seychelles Festival of the Sea, for the period of 22nd to 24th November this year. SUBIOS will this year celebrate its 24th edition and has gained global recognition as one of the world’s foremost underwater festivals, where film makers and renowned photographers come to the archipelago year after year to capture the biodiversity under water. Launched in 1989 as Sub Indian Ocean Seychelles, the event was rebranded in 2011 as SUBIOS Seychelles Festival of the Sea and is one of the Seychelles key dates on their annual calendar of festivals and events.

‘I think Sik Yuen was frankly stung by the success of the Maldives and how Mauritius was relegated into a distant second. But the lack of capacity at MTPA he publicly stated a few weeks ago in parliament will still be his biggest challenge. There were no changes since then at MTPA. How have they now gained capacity to organize a festival of this magnitude within a few weeks. Will tax payer money again be wasted like it was the case last year with the failed carnival? Will the tourism sector be fully involved and consulted in his new idea? When will there be change at MTPA to relaunch Mauritius tourism? Why did he change his mind now and who is to gain from this and can the public be given a budget estimate of what this will cost?’ contributed another source, like all others wary of the consequences of being named, not unusual considering the stories of the past about a vicious backlash against critics of MTPA’s leadership.

A mindboggling scenario of U-turns, twists in the tail and inexplicable actions, retractions and then more activism. Time will tell where this one is going, so watch this space for what will come next out of Port Louis.