The Sinking Of The Wakashio In Mauritius: What Did France Know?

France’s role in Mauritius has confused many.

12 days after a large Japanese tanker struck an important coral reef on the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius, it started leaking oil on August 6.

On August 7, the Prime Minister of Mauritius, Pravind Jugnauth, published an appeal for help on twitter.

The next day on August 8, the President of France responded with a tweet saying, “Whenever biodiversity is in danger, there is an urgency to act.  France is here.  Next to the people of Mauritius.”  He then went on to describe the deployment of equipment through the French territory of La Reunion, which is next to Mauritius.

Hundreds of thousands of gallons of toxic ship fuel oil had spilled out into Mauritius’ coral lagoons.  By August 15, the large Japanese vessel had completely split into two.

It was a day after this - and eight days after President Macron’s offer of urgent assistance - on Sunday August 16, that the French Minister for Overseas Territories, Sébastien Lecornu arrived for a one day meeting in Mauritius. He was accompanied by a French Navy Ship, ‘Le Champlain,’ along with 22 naval officers and three French Government pollution experts.  During his time on the island, he visited the site of the Wakashio, and only met with Mauritian Government officials.

The French Minister or officials did not meet with any of the civil society groups in Mauritius. None of the social or environmental leaders were consulted, even though they had been the ones on the front lines of the oil spill response who had to step up in their response when it was revealed that there were significant shortages by the shipping company and the Government of Mauritius of oil spill protection booms. 

This was just the start of the issues with the visit by Sébastien Lecornu.

Warnings about whale nursing grounds ignored

On 18 August, Forbes revealed that the 300 meter front section of the Wakashio - the size of the largest aircraft carrier in the US fleet - was to be sunk amid whale nursing grounds.

MORE FROM FORBESMacron's Interventions Backfire As Mauritius To Sink The Wakashio In Whale Nursing GroundsBy Nishan Degnarain

Eight days later, this forward section (called the bow) of the Wakashio had been towed into the middle of the ocean and deliberately sunk, despite cautions about the location of the sinking by biodiversity scientists, marine biologists and the general public in Mauritius.

The operation was performed by two Malta-flagged vessels, the Boka Expedition and the Boka Summit, under the control of the salvage company, SMIT Salvage, that is owned by multibillion dollar Dutch giant, Royal Boskalis Westminster.  SMIT Salvage had been brought to Mauritius by the multi-billion dollar insurer of the Wakashio, the Japan P&I Club.  The location of the sinking has never been publicly disclosed, and only images from Government photographers have been released. 

These photographs also reveal that the hull had remained afloat for many days, and the weather had appeared calm.  Given this, it was not clear why the Wakashio should have been deliberately scuttled, and why it was not towed to a shipbreaking yard to have been safely dismantled.

Within 24 hours of the sinking, the first of over 50 whales and dolphins were dead.  No disclosure has ever been made of what else was on board the Wakashio to have caused such a toxic outcome.

The move to deliberately sink the Wakashio without a full inventory (as required by international UN law under the IMO) has been widely criticized by international NGOs such as Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, who cited several international ocean pollution laws that could have been broken by this action. 

Given this, what was the role of France in the sinking?  What long term risk does the location of the sinking now pose to any of the other islands in the Indian Ocean?

Not learning the lessons from Beirut

Earlier that month on August 6, President Emmanuel Macron had stepped in to assist Lebanon following a devastating explosion in the Port of Beirut that destroyed large parts of the city.  This explosion on August 4 was caused by improperly stored, hazardous cargo that had been transported by a vessel sailing under a ‘flag of convenience.’ 

He offered to spearhead multilateral financial aid for Lebanon.

However, upon his visit on August 6, Macron experienced a massive backlash from the citizens of Lebanon, angry at the years of mismanagement of public institutions by Lebanese politicians.  They demanded greater accountability before any funds would be disbursed.

President Macron had learnt his lesson by the time he visited Lebanon a month later on September 1, when he invested time to meet with civil society organizations.

Wakashio and the role of La Reunion

One of the reasons that France has taken such a close interest in the Wakashio has been the proximity of French-run La Reunion island.  Mauritius is part of a chain of hotspot volcanoes.  To the East lies the ancient and extinct volcanic island of Rodrigues, which is part of Mauritius’ territory. 

140 miles West lies La Reunion.  It has an active volcano and a population of 860,000.  It is a French Overseas Territory which means it is a department of France, so essentially the European Union is a neighbor of Mauritius.

A short 45 minute flight means that transport between the two islands is very easy. 

Given the proximity of La Reunion to Mauritius, there are concerns both about what risk global shipping also now poses to La Reunion, and specifically, what risk the Wakashio oil spill posed.  

Speaking to BFM TV on August 16, French Minister, Sébastien Lecornu said, “As I speak to you, I cannot guarantee that there will be no pollution in La Réunion.” 

The visiting French Minister explained that the clean up operation would take at least ten months. He also had extensive briefings in Reunion island on August 15 prior to his arrival in Mauritius.

Risks to La Reunion

There were two types of risk to La Reunion from the Wakashio.  The first is the impact of floating pollution.  Oil is lighter than water.  This means that it would float on the water.  Hence it is important to understand the direction of the currents to see where this oil could travel.

It is also important to understand what type of oil was being transported and the impact it could have on marine life, even in small quantities. This process is known as oil fingerprinting.

With the inventory unclear of what was on board the Wakashio, it is also important to understand whether there was other floating pollution that could travel toward the coast of Mauritius or La Reunion.  One of the hidden killers in the ocean is the impact of ballast water, that is used to stabilize these giant ships. 

This often means taking ballast water from ports thousands of miles away and discharging in another port across the world.  It has only just been discovered how destructive ballast water is to local marine biodiversity and how it has led to the spread of harmful invasive species and other marine diseases.  Given the size of the Wakashio as one of the biggest ships in the sea, there could have been over 200,000 tons of ballast water on board.  There has been no declaration about this by the UN’s shipping agency, the IMO, which governs the ballast water convention, and who had a representative in Mauritius overseeing the oil spill response for the UN since August 12.

The second category of risk is from at depth pollution – pollution that is absorbed into the water and travels with deep ocean currents below the surface of the sea.  Again, the long term impacts of sinking large, metal vessels have caused problems in many parts of the world, especially with coral reef systems, and has cost many millions of dollars to have removed.

How were these risks taken into account for La Reunion, when the decision was taken to sink The Wakashio?

Understanding ocean currents between Mauritius and Reunion island

The ocean currents in the Indian Ocean between Mauritius and Reunion island have been well studied.

A scientific research paper published in 2014 in the Journal of Geophysical Research by leading French marine scientists, Stéphane Pous, Pascal Lazure, Gaël André, Franck Dumas, Issufo Halo and Pierrick Penven, entitled, “Circulation around La Réunion and Mauritius islands in the south‐western Indian Ocean: A modeling perspective,“ contains various descriptions about the strength of the currents at different times of the year.  During the months of August and October (the winter months in the Southern Hemisphere), the ocean currents beyond the coral lagoon of Mauritius flow in a Westerly direction.  That is, they flow from the East of Mauritius, down round the South East and then across in a South Westerly direction straight into Reunion island.

Based on the strength of currents shown in these studies, it is therefore possible to classify the zones for where the Waksahio was sunk into three categories of risk. 

Zone 1: a zone of high risk where any floating debris, such as oil and other toxins, would float directly onto the Eastern Coast of Reunion island.

Zone 2: would be a zone of medium risk, where there is a possibility that any debris could end up in Reunion island, but the risk is not as high as Zone 1. 

Zone 3: would be a zone of low risk where, based on the currents, the chance of floating debris is unlikely to end up on the coasts of Reunion island.

This is the sort of scientific rigor that should have been put in place to evaluate any decision to sink the Wakashio, including assessing the risk to a French and European Union territory in terms of Reunion island.

The Wakashio was being towed in a South Easterly direction.  

Where was it sunk, and how big a risk does this now pose to the coastline of Reunion island?

 Lessons from missing Malaysia Airlines MH370

To reinforce the findings from the French research paper, there have actually been extensive studies conducted around the entire Southern Indian Ocean based on the search for missing Malaysian Airlines flight, MH370.

When the aircraft vanished in March 2014, a part of the aircraft (called a flaperon) was found washed up on the shores of La Reunion in July 2015.  Another part was found on Rodrigues island in March 2016, that is part of Mauritius.  There was a lot of speculation on how these parts could have ended up there.

So a team of leading researchers from Australia, led by CSIRO’s David Griffin, conducted one of the most thorough investigations of ocean currents in the Indian Ocean.  This work was commissioned by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, whose report can be found here.

Having mocked up a design of the flaperon, they modelled its travel and patterns along the Indian Ocean.  Noticing some slight differences, they then ordered an actual part from Boeing and also started tracking the behavior of an actual flaperon.

They conducted hundreds of experiments (85 on various flaperon tracks, 31 ocean drifters and 1030 current and drift analysis models over 3 years), modelling the impact of current flows across the Indian Ocean for various scenarios based on where the Malaysian Airlines could have crashed and how the flaperon could have ended up on Reunion island.

The result is one of the most comprehensive maps of drift analysis across the entire Indian Ocean.  The hundreds of maps can be accessed here, and a description of the study can be seen here.

One pattern that was very clear, was that anything that was dropped in the wrong location, would end up directly hitting the Eastern Coast of Reunion island.

This includes any of the toxins on board the Wakashio, that could have caused the death of over 50 whales and dolphins.

Where was the Wakashio heading?

The last published satellite images of the Wakashio show the front section being towed off the coral reefs of Mauritius on 19 August 2020.  It was heading in a South-Easterly direction.

Satellite tracking and imagery captured the front section being towed by the SMIT Salvage-owned, Malta-flagged ships called Boka Expedition and Boka Summit.

Five days later on 24 August 2020, the vessel was confirmed to have been deliberately sunk.

The question is, where was the vessel sunk, and how much of a risk does the sinking location pose to Reunion island?

The deaths of so many whales and dolphins in such a short period of time is deeply concerning.  With large parts of the Coral Lagoon out of bounds for Mauritian fishermen or tourist boats, vessels have been unable to travel into the lagoon to see whether there were actually even large numbers of dead whales and dolphins that had drifted off or around the coast of Mauritius.  There has been widespread discussion in Mauritius about this.

Statements about France’s role

So how supportive was France of the decision to sink the Wakashio as well as in the location in which it was sunk?

The Government of Mauritius statements appear to be contradictory.

In a statement to Mauritius’ parliament on August 18, the Mauritian Minister of Environment said, “I wish to highlight that my Ministry established contact with authorities (Region Reunion) of Reunion Island on the next day of the grounding of the vessel, that is, on 26 July 2020, through the French Embassy to seek support as part as the POLMAR plan, should the need arise. Reunion Island set up a crisis cell on 06 August 2020 and subsequently, France delegated a ship, Le Champlain, with 22 crew members from the Marine Nationale de France and 20 tonnes of equipment, including 2 Zodiacs to assist in the response of the oil spill.”

He went on to say, “Furthermore, the French President, Emmanuel Macron, has delegated His Excellency, Mr Sébastien Lecornu, Ministre des Outre-Mer of France, to effect an official visit to Mauritius in the context of the French assistance following the oil spill. Mr Lecornu led a delegation to Mauritius on Sunday 16 August 2020. The latter met the Prime Minister, visited the affected areas and took cognizance of the French intervention in Mauritius through a presentation. The Minister and I also held a joint press conference on the same day to inform on the anti-pollution measures being implemented.”

The next part of the statement was particularly interesting.

“The Minister expressed concerns on the disposal of the forward section of the vessel. In that respect, he dispatched three experts from Cedre and Cellule Anti-Pollution, who were in Mauritius yesterday.

The experts had technical meetings with the Shipping Division of the Ministry of Blue Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping and the Salvage Team. Action is being taken to tow the forward section of the vessel to a safe distance of 8 nautical miles from the coast.

Consultations are underway on the appropriate manner to dispose of that part of the vessel.”

So in this statement to parliament, French Minister had expressed his concerns.  However, subsequent statements from the Mauritian Ministry of Environment imply the decision to sink the vessel in the location that was chosen was done with the support of the French experts from Cedre and the Cellule Anti-Pollution.

Parliament was then suspended for two months and has not sat since the August 18 sitting.  This suspension has caused anger by the opposition parties of Mauritius who have demanded their right for democratic scrutiny over the sinking of the Wakashio.

Then in a statement the next day on August 19, the National Crisis Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister of Mauritius, issued a press release at 6pm that said, “The scuttling position and conditions are in conformity with the advice of the French experts present in Mauritius.”

The French Minister had highlighted that French Government experts had been brought over with him for the meetings.  Clearly, these experts had a role to play in the location of the scuttling of the vessel.

Given this decision caused national outrage and over 100,000 on the streets of capital Port Louis - the largest protests seen in Mauritius since its independence - significant scrutiny needs to be placed upon this decision and the advice given by the French Government representatives in Mauritius.

UN Statements

The UN Agency responsible for regulating global shipping, including pollution in the ocean caused by shipping, is the International Maritime Organization (IMO).  They were the lead UN Agency appointed to coordinate the oil spill response. 

In a televised press conference on August 21, sitting next to the Commissioner of the Mauritian Police, the IMO representative in Mauritius, Matthew Sommerville, described five potential sites that had been identified by the Government of Mauritius, with the salvers (who had been appointed by the vessel insurers, Japan’s P&I Club) to tow the vessel for repair work. 

“Each one of them [the sites] was somewhere round Mauritius.  Each one of them meant taking that piece of the ship to somewhere else around the country that hasn’t been affected, bringing a risk during the tow, a risk while it was there.  Those options were looked at, considered and said, ‘not good.’  

Options for sinking the vessel were considered.  Initially three locations were identified where the waters were deep enough but were in the territorial waters of Mauritius.  They were considered.  Further advice was taken.  Some of that further advice came from neighboring countries.  Reunion had some requests regarding the position.  Wildlife considerations were taken into account… In the end, a fourth location was identified where the planned sinking could occur.”

On the specific location of the sinking, the IMO representative was very clear that, “The position has been chosen because it is somewhere safe to deliberately sink the vessel.  So it’s a very considered thing that’s gone on.”

So it is clear that the French Government knew about these four locations that were considered for the sinking, and were actively giving their input.

Over fifty whales and dolphins died straight after the sinking, so serious questions are being asked about the toxicity of the oil and the vessel that was sunk, and what long term risk this now represents to Mauritius and Reunion island.

Tight lipped officials

Despite being approached for a comment, none of the French Minister for Overseas Territories, Sébastien Lecornu, the French Embassy in Mauritius, nor authorities in La Reunion would give a comment to international media on the French Government’s involvement in the sinking of the Wakashio, its location, or how much of a risk it poses to La Reunion.

With no answers from the Government of France, questions may extend to the European Union whether any pollution caused by the Wakashio has ended up in their territorial waters and islands.

Seven questions for France to answer

So this raises several important questions that have gone unanswered by the French Government. 

This is particularly relevant in the week that French President Emmanuel Macron signed a leaders pledge at the UN calling for action to prevent biodiversity loss.

Questions that remain unanswered about France’s involvement in the sinking of the Wakashio:

1. Did the French Government support the decision to sink the Wakashio?

2. What alternatives were considered? (especially given how calm the weather conditions were and how buoyant the front section of the Wakashio appeared)

3. How was the risk to La Reunion assessed?

4. How does France assure La Reunion that it was not placed at greater risk by the sinking of the Wakashio, especially given the toxicity of the oil and other potentially unknown substances associated with the Wakashio that appears to be causing so much destruction to Mauritius’ marine life?

5. Given France’s position on sustainability and being a member of the G20 group of leading industrial nations with large shipping interests, what actions will France take to ensure such an event never happens again? (the grounding of the ship, the oil spill and the deliberate sinking of the vessel).

6. Given concerns about the actions of French companies operating in Mauritius for the clean up and using methods that have not been independently assessed by scientists, what accountability will the French Government demand of French companies operating in other countries that have globally renown sites of unique biodiversity?

La Reunion island is sandwiched between the same busy shipping lanes as Mauritius and ship groundings and fires have occurred half a dozen times around the two islands in the last ten years, without any major changes to global shipping. 

This then leads to the most important question of all:

7. Why hasn’t the location of the sinking of the Wakashio been made public?

It’s now been over a month and such high whale and dolphin deaths so soon after an oil spill is very worrisome.

It appears that more questions surround the fate of the cursed ship of the Wakashio, as its stern still sits on top of the coral reefs of Mauritius, with the hull and ropes grinding away at the 100,000 year old barrier coral reef. 

It wasn’t as if climate change was bad enough, but now the effects of man are more acutely being felt.