Former premier: Conservation law changes are ‘totally unjustified’

Planned changes to the National Conservation Act will strip it of its power and tilt the balance of Cayman’s future towards unchecked development, two former sustainability ministers have claimed in an interview with the Compass.

The proposed changes are “totally unjustified” and put the priorities of “special interests” above the needs of Cayman Islands people, according to former Premier Wayne Panton and Katherine Ebanks-Wilks, his successor as Minister of Sustainability.

Meanwhile, Progressives leader Joey Hew has confirmed his party will not support amendments at this time and recommended government withdraw the bill and leave the issue to a new administration with a fresh mandate following the general election in April.

Former Premier McKeeva Bush, who is part of the seven member minority government, said the changes are needed now.

He blamed environmental red tape for adding delays and expense to much needed projects arguing that Cayman is still a “developing country”.

Despite criticism from opposition MPs and non-profits, Bush insists the amendments are balanced and necessary and insisted “we must break a few eggs to make an omelette”.

Ebanks-Wilks and Panton, in an interview with the Compass, argued that the legislation paves the way for more than that, removing important environmental safeguards.

If passed, Panton said the changes would signal a “free for all” approach towards development at a time when he believes Caymanians want to see more balance.

Panton said the changes would essentially “gut” the conservation law meaning major government projects like ports or highways could proceed without proper consideration of their environmental impacts.

“It is blatantly obvious that there is no justification for this. This has been designed to try to serve the needs of certain special interests against the interests of the country and against the interests of Caymanians generally,” he told the Compass.

Ebanks-Wilks said she had refused to bring amendments to the act when she was minister and ultimately quit government to avoid being associated with changes that she fundamentally does not believe in.

She rejected claims that the Act had slowed development which she said is “surging at an alarming pace”.

She added, “These proposed amendments are unnecessary and, even more troubling, could further accelerate overdevelopment and lead to irreversible destruction.”

Hew: ‘Leave controversial issue to the next government’

Progressives leader Hew believes the conservation law does require some tweaks, especially if, as critics of the law suggest, there are constitutional concerns around the conservation council’s ability to direct Cabinet on certain issues.

However, he confirmed that the Progressives will not support the current bill and will join Panton and former Deputy Premier André Ebanks’ group in seeking to block it from coming to Parliament in this session.

Hew said the issues were emotive on all sides, impacting the economy and the environment, and are too controversial to be pushed through without much wider public consultation.

He also emphasised the Progressives’ agreement to allow the minority UPM administration to continue was on the premise that they would only bring urgent and non-controversial legislation. This does not fit the bill on either count, he said.

“Even if we do agree with some of the some of the of the recommendations, it just falls outside of that agreement. I don’t see how we could support them bringing it to Parliament at this time.

“This sort of legislation needs to come from a unified government that can go out to the public and consult properly.”

He added that pushing the issue now and seeing it defeated in Parliament – or in business committee before it gets to Parliament – could backfire for those who support the amendments, leading to the issue being shelved.

Bush: ‘We are a small developing state’

We reached out on numerous occasions to Minister Dwayne Seymour, who now has responsibility for the sustainability portfolio, to ask him to explain the government’s rationale for the amendments. He declined to comment for this story.

Premier Juliana O’Connor-Connolly also did not respond to our questions.

West Bay West MP McKeeva Bush said the changes were sensible and balanced and stemmed from a desire to cut bureaucracy which he believes is hampering “sensible development”.

He said elected MPs in Cabinet should be the ones to decide the right balance between protecting Cayman’s environment and the development and infrastructure needs.

“We are not scrapping the idea of it but we can’t leave it the way it is. You can’t have a situation where one government department is suing another,” he said, referring to the National Conservation Council’s successful lawsuit which confirmed its legal right to make the final call on planning applications which could have a significant negative impact on marine parks or protected areas.

He said Cayman’s revenues depended on development and construction. And he described the islands as a “developing state” that needed infrastructure.

Reiterating his support for a new cruise and cargo dock and a highway, Bush acknowledged there would be environmental consequences but insisted balance was needed to ensure “sensible development”.

Key changes

Our analysis of the bill suggests five key impacts stemming from these changes:

• Major infrastructure projects including ports and highways will no longer require environmental impact assessments unless Cabinet chooses.
• The Central Planning Authority will be free to disregard recommendations of the conservation council if it sees good reason to do so, even in cases that could impact marine parks or protected habitats.
• There would no longer be a requirement for members of the council to have relevant expertise or experience.
• Decisions about spending of the Environmental Protection Fund will move exclusively to Cabinet.
• The council cannot go to court to enforce its decisions without the express permission of the Attorney General and a new process will be brought in making Cabinet the final point of appeal for anyone objecting to the council’s decisions.

MPs: ‘Conservation a priority’

There has been some concern from developers and various government ministers, past and present, about the potential for the council to block or delay needed infrastructure projects.

Panton, who was instrumental in getting the legislation passed in the first place, said there was no evidence to justify this perspective.

He said environmental impact assessments were used sparingly and only when a project could have far-reaching implications for the environment and socio-economic well-being of the island. 

Citing the cruise port project and the planned highway extension to Frank Sound, as well as emerging discussions over an airport runway expansion into the North Sound, a possible cargo port at Breakers and a new solution for waste management, Panton insisted it was irresponsible to push ahead with such major developments without first considering the impact.

He added that such assessments were routine in most modern democracies and were often mandatory requirements from financiers and can’t be blamed for delays in complex projects that involve significant preparatory work.

He emphasised that environmental impact assessments are not “decision-making tools” but simply provide government with the best information to make a decision.

Panton, who spoke out previously about what he described as attempts to “gut the conservation law”, said the final amendments – published on New Year’s Eve – were less far-reaching than what he had been apprised of previously, but achieved the same thing.

“This crosses many lines. I see no justification for any of it,” he added.

Ebanks-Wilks said she was asked to bring the proposed amendments to Parliament when she was minister. But she said she had resigned rather than be involved in something she did not believe in.

“I think that conservation has certainly become a priority for the average citizen,” Ebanks-Wilks said.

“It’s no longer just affluent constituents that worry about protecting the environment. Now it’s the rich, the poor, it’s the young, it’s the old. Everybody is concerned about where we’re headed in terms of our pace of development.”

Differing perspectives

Environmental group Sustainable Cayman meanwhile outlined its opposition to the changes in a press release last week, hailing the act in its current form as a meticulously crafted piece of legislation that protects natural resources for present and future generations.

It stated, “Sustainable Cayman unequivocally opposes these amendments, which threaten to significantly undermine the effectiveness of the National Conservation Council, diluting their authority over crucial environmental oversight.

“This includes potentially devastating impacts on our marine parks and protected species by allowing major infrastructural projects like ports and highways to proceed without necessary Environmental Impact Assessments.”

Developer Frank Schilling, who hopes to build a port on Cayman Brac, indicated support for the changes, saying the current law was a “massive overreach” that created too much bureaucracy.

“This is the pushback we all needed as a nation and it’s good for Cayman,” he wrote in response to a Compass article.

“I’ve said it before – there [is a] small vocal minority of environmental zealots who have an outsized voice in this country and who don’t work in alignment with the wishes of the majority of the population…

“This is the pendulum swing the other way and I’m very happy about it for the country.”

Legislation may not make it to Parliament

Arguments about the substance of the legislation may ultimately be irrelevant as both the Progressives and the opposition group, including André Ebanks, Panton and Ebanks-Wilks, have indicated they do not support it.

Without their support, government would likely not have the numbers to get the bill on the order paper for the next session of Parliament, let alone pass it in the House.

In a separate press release quoting André Ebanks along with Panton and Ebanks-Wilks, the MPs confirm they will seek to block the bill reaching Parliament.

“Despite its diminished numbers, the minority government appears determined to proceed with these matters before the end of its term, for reasons that remain unclear,” André Ebanks said.

“Such important decisions should be handled by a new government with a clear electoral majority. It would be more appropriate for the current minority government to focus solely on day-to-day operations until the April 2025 election.”