Too often, high-budget projects in the Virgin Islands get planning approval based on environmental impact assessments that are quite possibly inherently faulted. There seems to be no question that the approval of the Beef Island project, proposed by one expatriate from Hong Kong named Hung, should not have occurred. The proposal included three real phases: a five-star hotel, a marina, some 600 residential units and a golf course. I will address these phases one at a time.
Hotel, marina
The concept of five-star hotels was a major factor in the last election. The Beef Island project probably cost the National Democratic Party the Eighth District, and the development concept that was a part of the NDP’s political platform quite possibly cost the party heavily in all of the other districts. It should be obvious to any observer that major developments such as Smugglers Cove (hopefully dead), Raffles (dead), Scrub Island (operational after several brushes with planning officials), and now Beef Island are not generally to the public’s liking. In these hard economic times, such developments’ overall long-term benefits to the territory are, at the very least, questionable.
In addition, is another marina needed? Cameron McColl is proposing to greatly expand Nanny Cay. In conditions of economic downturn plus increased facilities availability, why does any sane person think that yet another excursion into environmental destruction can be justified?
Residences
If 600 residential units were built, the whole of Beef Island would be used and, in all probability, lost to most residents forever. Villas and other such residential units classically are either used as rental properties or are purchased by expatriates who do not intend to occupy them full time. In either case, the land is lost to the population.
With the population (as of the 2010 census) now estimated at 30,000, and still increasing, the inevitable crowding should become a major factor in planning decisions. In 1987, at the time that the incinerator was in the design stage, the population was estimated at 9,000. At that time, no one would have predicted an increase to 30,000. And, today, a further increase to the 40,000 level is dismissed as unlikely, if not impossible. But history has a tendency to repeat itself. And what are our plans if the population does increase to the possible level and we have deleted some 650 acres from our land bank?
Golf course
In the latter part of the 20th Century, golf was a major sport in the United States. It was something that most could at least play, and public courses were readily available. Then development caught up with the game. As pressure for land increased, courses were sold off for subdivision development. The pressure on private courses increased and membership costs increased remarkably. And, possibly to a lesser degree, so did equipment costs. As a result of all of these factors, the number of golf courses in the US has actually decreased over the years, and golf has become a less popular sport. The idea that a golf course is likely to be a major tourist drawing card is, at best, unproven — and, at worst, simply wrong.
In addition, in the local climate, a golf course is likely to be a heavy drain on the local infrastructure. It needs water, which locally can only come from desalination. The only practical source of desalinated water is reverse osmosis. Even if the developer puts in his own plant, he must face the fact that, given the five-to-10 parts per million of residual salt that is normal in desalinated water, the potential salt build-up in the turf of a golf course may be unsatisfactory. Added to that is the power usage of the plant itself — on an island that is chronically power-short in any case.
Also, grass needs fertiliser to grow. And the grass that is used for golf course greens (a form of creeping bent) is, at best, delicate and poorly suited to drought conditions. But the necessary fertiliser is not all used by the turf. And the excess will inevitably be carried off in the runoff. This will, again inevitably, result in the pollution of the receiving waters — in this case, Hans Creek. The probable result will be the destruction of a fish breeding area. And, once destroyed, it is gone forever. And it probably does not much matter how much of a buffer zone is available when drainage (and not runoff) is concerned.
Quorum, the developer, claims to be developing a new “master plan” that will supposedly answer many of the outstanding questions. And, if one buys into that idea, then approval of such a revised plan before it is subject to public review will simply set up a situation where the public and the environment will inevitably be held ransom. As the saying goes, “If you believe that, I have some seafront property in Arizona that may be of interest to you.”
Assessing the environment
Environmental Impact Assessments are locally prepared only by consultants who are acceptable to (licensed by?) the government. Judging by recent proposals, there are a very limited number of sources available to any developer. And, of course, since the developer pays for the study, there tends to be a distinct tendency to display a bias towards the development.
The only surprising thing about the Beef Island study was the fact that the probability of damage to Hans Creek was mentioned at all. The fact that the government at the time ignored it is hardly surprising. Without the actions of the Virgin Islands Environmental Council and other residents, this would have been a done deal. And without high-powered legal help supplied pro bono from England, the legal challenge would have come to nothing.
For once, the system seemed to have worked, and the public voice was heard and heeded.
Then came the legal eagles!
The appeal against the court ruling is not based on the environmental facts but rather on the apparent faults in the legislation. And, if the current decision on the case succeeds, the public can forget any future action intended to protect the environment. Developers will have a free hand to destroy the islands at will, provided that there is a profit margin and provided that they can get the government of the day to agree.
At some point in time, the legal profession needs to separate business (and profit) concerns and look at the future of the territory. If the law is weak — and presumably the VIEC is correct in that the current law is not worth the paper that it is written on — then it is the law that should be corrected and strengthened. The tendency to pick loopholes in law for the benefit of developers should be rather more restrained, and the end results should be a strengthening of the environmental protection, not the destruction of the territory for personal gain.
Other cases
To amplify this point, we have the case of Julian Willock, the communications and works permanent secretary who was sent on compulsory leave to allow for an investigation into allegations of misconduct. A report on his actions was prepared, but it was thrown out in court. The challenge wasn’t based on the allegations against him, but on the method used to prepare the report. (As a note, the legal firm involved was the same firm that handled the Beef Island appeal.)
There is a body known as the Law Reform Commission. This body has been around for a long time, and has a local office and a much bigger vehicle than I can afford to own. Historically, it has helped develop much legislation, including a new Elections Act (passed recently as a necessary step before the elections), and apparently new legislation concerning the environment and freedom of information.
New and effective legislation on the environment is obviously needed. But many of the commission’s proposals appear to have been ignored by Cabinet. And freedom of information is a very old dog that is highly unlikely to ever see the light of day.
We either want to protect the environment or we do not. At the moment, it seems that there are two views: that held by VIEC and a sizable part of the population, and that held by a segment of the legal profession and the part of the court system located remotely from the territory.
We either have laws that we are willing to follow and enforce or we do not. I leave it to the reader to draw the conclusion that seems obvious on that question.
At what point in time will the concerned and active part of the public get some degree of lasting satisfaction? At the moment that time seems to be receding rapidly.