[ad_1]
(CNS): The National Conservation Council has refuted false claims and misinformation circulating on social media that falsely suggest the Director of the Department of Environment has unprecedented powers under the National Conservation Act (NCA) that elevates the position holder above the Cabinet and allows anyone in the position to make decisions without accountability.
The NCC said this was a complete lie and was fighting back against the many “factual inconsistencies and false assumptions” made by the development lobby to pressure the government to repeal the bill.
In a statement correcting the false allegations, the NCC said neither the NCC nor the director of the Education Department had any authority over the Cabinet, which remained the decision-maker on all matters relating to the law.
“The National Conservation Act does not bring the cabinet to its knees,” the committee said, noting that the law effectively prohibits its members from dictating the cabinet. “All decisions made by the NCC are appealable to the cabinet under Article 41. Cabinet approval of protected areas recommended by the NCC and cabinet approval of conservation plans for critical habitats established after approval by the NCC are made after public consultation and input.”
The act allows the NCC to issue temporary directives to create critical habitat and other protections during emergencies or emergencies. However, these directives must be reported immediately to the Cabinet, which can revoke these temporary protections at any time.
The idea that the director’s opinion is supreme is also a deliberate falsehood spread by those who want to weaken the law, not because they are concerned about the democratic process, but because they believe that anything that can direct or control development is likely to reduce profits.
It was difficult for the NCC to provide technical advice on the 500 or so planning applications that required input from government agencies, and the Director of the DoE was not able to complete the submission and advice alone.
“This task requires expertise and skills from across the department, therefore, a Technical Review Committee, comprised of relevant science experts from the Department of Energy, will review the application to provide the best technical advice,” the committee explained. “The NCC has delegated the issuance of permits and licenses to the Director-General – similarly, there is a team within the Department of Energy that processes applications in accordance with the licensing directives published by the NCC.”
The commission explained that this was not an isolated case. “Some government agencies must rely on the work of civil servants in their respective departments to carry out their duties and to inform their decisions,” the NCC said, noting that the Central Planning Authority has delegated approval authority for certain types of applications to the Director General of Planning.
The NCC noted that other government departments and technical experts submitted comments about the development to the CPA, but these were never challenged. For example, the Water Authority has statutory powers to make recommendations on wastewater treatment, disposal and water supply, and the CPA must adopt these recommendations, even if it means developers have to change their plans.
Another example is that under planning regulations a CPA must refuse to build a swimming pool unless there is a certificate signed by a senior health official.
The erroneous claim that the NCC has delegated all powers to the Director of Education is also false. The Cabinet appoints eight members of the Commission; four others are appointed on the basis of their civil service status and one member is appointed by the Cabinet on the nomination of the National Trust.
The law prohibits the NCC from delegating certain functions, such as orders and instructions, to anyone. Only a small number of the NCC’s other functions have been delegated to the Director. When drafting the NCA, the drafters of the legislation proposed delegating powers to a “legal entity” that could be held accountable.
The NCC explained that the department is not a separate legal entity from the Cayman Islands Government, rather the director of the department is a recognised legal entity within the CIG that represents the department.
Like all civil servants, the Director of the Ministry of Education is not elected, but as a technical advisor to the government, she remains accountable to it and, like many other senior officials, has a duty to serve the people and the country.
One of the National Conservation Council’s most important responsibilities is to make decisions based on evidence. Historically, many decisions related to development have been made on an ad hoc basis without considering the full impacts.
The consequences of relatively mild weather in recent years, a significant increase in flooding and concern about erosion on Seven Mile Beach are evident, as are the cultural impacts of inappropriate development on local residents, who are losing access to the beach.
The NCC says its role is to provide objective, robust, science-based advice and guidance to decision-makers on proposals that could cause irreversible impacts on the natural environment.
“The NCC’s primary role is to make recommendations, not decisions,” the committee stressed. “Its actual decision-making power is very limited.”
The Ministry of Environment has certain enforcement responsibilities, such as managing fish pot permits and the possession and use of spear guns, all based on the need to limit overfishing, supported by sound scientific data.
The NCC decides whether an EIA is required based on the technical review opinion issued by the Ministry of Energy in order to provide a reasonable and robust recommendation to the initiating entity (whether it is the Cabinet, CPA, NRA or any other entity). However, the results of the EIA are not binding and the decision on whether to conditionally approve the plan remains with the CPA.
The NCC can only instruct the CPA to reject an application if the project poses a direct threat to a protected area or critical habitat for a protected species. But this critical status is not granted by the NCC or the DoE, but by Cabinet after multiple rounds of public consultation.
There is nothing unusual or undemocratic about this conservation law. It was passed with the intent to ensure that the environment ultimately has equal weight in decision-making as all other factors. But because it directly affects land ownership and is relatively new, it has been wrongly demonized by those seeking to maximize profits from developing pristine lands, regardless of the adverse effects that development has on Cayman’s natural habitats.
As the government works to water down the law to meet the demands of unelected, unaccountable and influential developers, public concern is growing that the people will once again be the losers in the fight to protect Cayman’s once stunning natural environment.
View the full statement from the NCC here.
[ad_2]
Source link
