Coalition fears rubber stamp on EIA for BT dump
(CNS): Following the recent publication of the draft terms of reference for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) on the proposed Bodden Town dump campaigners in the district say they fear the EIA will end up being nothing more than a rubber stamping exercise for the move of the GT landfill to their district. Campaigners said while they hoped the assessment would confirm the fears expressed by the central tenders committee about putting a dump in an “environmentally sensitive” area it would in fact be more likely to end up facilitating the move because the Terms of Reference have already been restricted by government before the assessment even starts.
Gregg Anderson, one of the leaders of the Coalition to Keep Bodden Town Dump Free said the terms of reference were nothing more than a “crippled and biased sham, forced on a muzzled Environmental Advisory Board (EAB)”. Anderson added that the extremely limited scope of the TOR, and the people hand-picked by Dart to carry it out mean it t would result in a rubber-stamp on the senseless plan to move the George Town dump to Bodden Town.
Charles Clifford another coalition leader and former environment minister in the previous PPM Cabinet said government not only muzzled the EAB but crippled its mandate. “The EAB was blatantly ordered to draft a severely restricted TOR tailored to accommodate Dart’s desire to get the GT dump ‘out of its backyard’. It was ordered to not identify the best waste management solution for our country.”
According to internal minutes of an EAB meeting from February of this year the director of the Department of Environment, recommended a “broader review…to identify the optimal waste management solution for the country through an assessment of alternatives, with input from all stakeholders and public consultation.”
Gina Ebanks-Petrie had recommended at the meeting that an EIA that complies with International best practice would have a wider scope which would include issues such as alternative approaches to solid waste management, and the site selection process. Nevertheless Cabinet instructed the EAB to limit the review to the proposals as presented by Dart and the Bodden town location and not to carry out a review of the most suitable overall waste management solution.
The coalition also fears that the EIA will be conducted by “consultants cherry-picked by Dart,” and notes that the public cannot have faith in the EIA findings unless the assessment is carried out by unbiased professionals, completely independent of Dart, the campaigners added.
Clifford said the TOR was a sham “drafted to disguise government’s intention to proceed with the BT dump regardless of its consequences for our district,” theformer Cabinet member added. “Since its murky inception, this plan has disregarded due process and good governance. There has been no Planning Authority permission for a dump in our district, no open rezoning process to allow a dump in an environmentally sensitive area presently restricted to residential/agricultural usage, and far removed from the source of most of the island’s waste.”
In the wake of the recent pressure from the UK and the U-turn by the premier over the FFR and the port project Clifford also pointed to the government’s failure to follow protocol over the dump procurement.
“In spite of the magnitude of the Dart proposal..there has been no public tendering process (or RFP) for the plan. Indeed, inasmuch as there has been any RFP to solve the GT dump problem, Dart’s proposal was soundly rejected. As such, like Premier Bush’s now abandoned plan for cruise berthing facilities, it violates the Framework for Fiscal Responsibility agreement with the UK. As well, it ignores several commitments contained in the Environmental Charter which Bush himself signed with the UK in 2001,” Clifford added.
Category: Local News
Oh no! Someone wants to help this island prevent further environmental damage and help (at a huge cost to themselves) remediate Mt Trashmore and turn it into a safe and useable area… Oh no! Someone wants to create a new properly lined, safe waste facility so that we don't create another Mt Trashmore elsewhere… Oh my goodness! Will you really miss that awful smell or that horrible sight?!? If so take a picture, this island needs a properly designed waste facility – not an empty lot that turned into Mt Trashmore!
"wants to help this island prevent further environmental damage" – He bought a piece of property next to a dump and invested millions in it. Now he wants it moved. What make you think its about the environment?
Let's start a new movement called Stop Dumping on Georgetown..The solution to all this infighting might be to have each district handle and pay for it's own waste management.
The people in Boddentwon don't seem to have had an issue putting thier garbage on someones elses doorstep for the last 20 or more years..
Bodden Towners will moan and moan. That is all they do. "What good does this do for Bodden Town?", "Why have you not built this in Bodden Town?", "Why have you not built that in Bodden Town?". Just get on with it and build the dump. Then, at last, the District will contribute something to the nation as opposed to its normal drain on resources.
Hey Tiredofthemoaning, please have the decency to tell us which district you are from. You have no moral ground for disparaging the Bodden Town contingent unless you are volunteering that the dump be placed on your doorstep. I personally have no problem with the "landfill" being moved IF managed properly, but in fact, it is Dart that does not want it in his back yard.
I think you will find that West Bay takes the cake when it comes to social services (drain)and that is not including the Turtle Farm!.
The only ones who are draining resources are Mac and Dart,and it is only for their good NOT Caymans!!
So let's get this straight .. the BT Colition folk claim the EAB claims this environment study is not the one they want.
But now we have teh EAB helping draft the terms of reference, putting their name to the public meetings, and going to approve teh final thing too.
Sounds to me like they're pretty OK with the process.
Just do it for Christs sake.
This is Bush leadership at its best (worst). Making things work to fit his developer cronies not the people.
An EIA is usually done AFTER planning permission has been applied for and is typically site specific! Nothing unusual in restricting it to a specific site. Regarding a choice of consultants, I understand the EAB were provided with three very credible and experienced firms and the EAB selected the one they wanted.
BT Coalition, why don’t you stop this nimby mindset and allowthe EIA to be completed, as it is clear you do not have the interests of the country in mind, just your own selfish protectionism.
"nimby mindset" and "selfish protectionism"??
Cant you say the same thing about the dart group
Rubber stamp?
Oh thank God this debate is over…time to move on nothing to see here folks
To my knowledge, This is not the same property that was proposed to CTC which was deemed by them as environmentally sensitive.
To my knowledge, This is not the same property that was proposed to CTC which was deemed by them as environmentally sensitive.
To my knowledge, This is not the same property that was proposed to CTC which was deemed by them as environmentally sensitive.
As it should be. Quit wasting time and resources and get on with it!