By Alric Lindsay
Minister of Tourism Kenneth Bryan called the Cayman Marl Road Show today, September 27, 2024, to clarify that any projects under his portfolio, namely the airport runway extension and any cargo port redevelopment, would require an environmental impact assessment.
Directing his comment at former Premier Wayne Panton, Bryan said that he did not think it was fair to give the public the perception that he, as minister, would support these two types of projects without an EIA.
Bryan added:
And I think it’s also unfair that you leave the perspective that that is what any changes that is potentially coming to Parliament is going to be suggesting.
Now I get you. I respect the fact, your commitment to the environment, but speculation is not fair to true justice for Parliament. So, I had to defend my position in the areas of my constitutional responsibility.
He continued:
Don’t make it seem. Don’t let the public think that Kenneth Bryan is trying to avoid an EIA. At least the minister, not Kenneth Bryan, the minister of tourism in port. But that’s not the case and we know that, Wayne. All right, so I support your efforts and keep in protection for that. But that’s not fair to lose that perception. So that’s all I’m saying. I appreciate your commentary.
Panton clarified that the statement which he was making saying:
I appreciate his expression of a view or position that he wouldn’t do anything like that without an EIA being a part of the process. But that’s not what I was saying. I was saying if you are bringing an amendment to the National Conservation act which says that the position as it is now, that the NCC can say this is such a significant project and proposal that an EIA should be conducted, that you’re going, you’re proposing to change that, to eliminate that possibility by saying either Cabinet can say, no, EIA is required.
Panton added:
Now remember, Cabinet doesn’t have any particular expertise, doesn’t have any, any specific qualifications. So, you have laypeople making decisions that what is, what the science and the scientists, let’s call them, are saying is necessary in order to get a right, get the best decision. If the laypeople are saying we shouldn’t, we don’t need that, then that may extend to those kinds of projects. Right. So, if Cabinet says no, we don’t. Cabinet could say, it might not be this Cabinet, it might be a future Cabinet. I’m not saying it’s necessarily this Cabinet. I’m saying it’s a bad idea for anybody in Cabinet to be able to say an EIA is not required.
Panton continued:
It is not just about the environment. EIA is, even though it’s called an environmental impact assessment, they deal with socio economic factors. They deal with economic factors and yes, they deal with environmental factors. At the end of the day, they are promoting information that is would best inform a decision and hopefully lead to the best decision and best result.
But if you don’t do that kind of thing, then you may find that the money, the $100 million that you spent on something was completely wasted because the project had compromised to such an extent, because they didn’t rely on the right information that the country suffers, you don’t get the outcome you desired, and it costs twice as much to fix it.
The exchange between Panton and Bryan reflects public debate surrounding changes that the Government is speculated to be making to the National Conservation Act. This speculation continues while the Bill to amend the National Conservation Act remains unpublished.
Possible speculated changes include amending the voting powers of Department of Environment Director Gina Ebanks-Petrie on the National Conservation Council and modifying the ability to delegate powers of the Council to Ebanks-Petrie. However, the scope and impacts are speculation until the actual proposed changes are published. It is understood that this is the point that Bryan was making.
It remains to be seen what proposals the Government will publish to amend the National Conservation Act and which MPs will support or oppose them.
