IN AN obvious attempt to soothe public anger over the Rubis fuel leak disaster in Marathon, Environment Minister Ken Dorsett recently unveiled draft legislation “for the establishment of the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection”, saying the law would be brought to Parliament in October.

This hasty reaction, combined with an unprecedented government apology to Marathon residents for withholding key information on the health risks they faced, indicates the extent of the political damage control the Christie administration feels obliged to take.

But although titled the Environmental Planning and Protection Bill 2015, Dorsett’s draft legislation goes back at least 14 years, to when the Ingraham administration first began codifying environmental protections with help from the United Nations.

Until the late 1990s, most Bahamians had no involvement in development proposals whatsoever. The government and the developers made all the decisions – behind closed doors – and there was no statutory authority for environmental controls.

“We couldn’t even talk to the government directly about these things back then,” one longtime conservationist told me. “We had to provide our input from the sidelines, through conduits with more influence like the Inter-American Development Bank.”

The proposed development of 600 acres at the former Clifton plantation on southwest New Providence changed all that. In early 1999 the government held a town meeting on the Clifton project, and in response to calls for an official land use plan, it became clear there was no legislation to provide for this. Under heavy pressure from environmentalists and the opposition Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) – who sensed blood in the water in the run-up to a general election – the Ingraham administration added an environmental section to the Energy Ministry portfolio in 2000, and formulated the first environmental protection law, with a view to establishing a cabinet post for environmental protection and planning.

Dorsett’s draft closely resembles this original Bill. Both call for “the integrated protection of the environment and the sustainable management of natural resources.” And both stipulate that an Environmental Advisory Council (composed mostly of civil servants) will be responsible for decisions on land use and coastal management plans.

After the Free National Movement were ousted in the 2002 general election, the new PLP government set about revising the draft law it found on the table, but never brought it to Parliament. Environmental matters remained scattered across various ministries until 2008, when the second Ingraham administration created a substantive Ministry of the Environment, which consolidated a range of agencies under one umbrella but decided not to proceed with comprehensive legislation.

So the 2000 draft law has now been dusted off to placate critics of the Christie government’s environmental record. We know this for a fact because the recently unveiled Bill refers to several pieces of legislation that have long been repealed or amended, yet fails to mention relevant legislation that is currently in force. In fact, Dorsett’s environmental Bill appears to duplicate key aspects of the Planning and Subdivisions Act (which became law in 2010, but which this government doesn’t seem to be enforcing). Dorsett’s Bill makes no reference to this existing law.

The Planning and Subdivisions Act was passed to promote viable communities by preventing the indiscriminate division of land, pursuing sustainable development and protecting our natural and cultural heritage.

The law consolidates all aspects of town planning and subdivision development, expands public participation in the approval process, gives statutory authority for environmental impact assessments and mandates land-use plans for every island, based on a national land development policy that was supposedly under review.

Dorsett’s Bill also ignores the Forestry Act of 2010, which established a special unit in his own Ministry. That law conserves Bahamian pine, hardwood and mangrove forests while regulating their sustainable exploitation. It contains provisions for agro-forestry, for the legal protection of forests and wetlands, and for the management of invasive plants.

As well, Dorsett’s Bill ignores the Bahamas National Trust Act, which was significantly revised in 2010 to give this non-governmental organisation statutory authority to advise the public and private sectors on development issues and policies. So clearly, Dorsett’s release of an environmental planning and protection law that takes no account of these legislative developments proves that it is just a public relations ruse.

It is similar, in fact, to the recent announcement by the Attorney General that she has asked a retired judge to look into her own decision to withhold the Black and Veatch environmental report on the Rubis fuel leak. And it is also similar to Marathon MP Jerome Fitzgerald’s unexpected release of a revised Freedom of Information Bill. You know, the same Jerome Fitzgerald who said he couldn’t deal publicly with the health risks faced by his constituents because they had been discussed in cabinet.

Marine protected areas - an open and shut case

One year ago, the research firm Public Domain conducted a telephone survey on behalf of The Nature Conservancy to gauge Bahamian views on the importance of protecting the marine environment.

The Nature Conservancy is a US-based organisation with more than a million members that work in more than 35 countries - including The Bahamas - to help local agencies protect important land and sea areas.

Public Domain interviewed over 900 residents on New Providence, Grand Bahama and Abaco last May, and the poll had a level of confidence of 95 per cent, according to the company’s principal, M’wale Rahming.

The results were definitive, to say the least.

More than 90 per cent of all respondents said that the government should make protecting our marine environment a priority, yet more than two-thirds of respondents on each island believed not enough was being done in this regard.

Over 80 per cent said they would support the creation of marine protected areas throughout The Bahamas, and similar numbers said they would vote for a government that protected the environment.

Over 40 per cent of respondents said they earned a living from the sea, and almost 90 per cent agreed that we should limit what fishermen catch in order to protect marine resources for the future.

More than 70 per cent considered the following issues to be urgent, requiring the immediate attention of government: protecting coral reefs, protecting marine life, developing a sustainable economy, preserving wetlands and creating marine protected areas.

In his executive summary, Rahming said the results show that the marine environment “is at the centre of the Bahamian DNA… the heart of Bahamian culture and daily life”, but most people feel the government is not doing enough to protect it.

“The brand of the government would benefit from tackling (this issue) strongly,” he said. “According to the vast majority of Bahamians, safeguarding marine life in general (coral reefs, conch, etc.) requires immediate attention.”

You may not know it, but both the Ingraham and Christie governments have signed on to a regional agreement to protect 20 per cent of our nearshore waters and coastlines, although only about three per cent is protected now. The agreement is called the 20 by 20 Challenge.

Worldwide, less than one per cent of the ocean is fully protected, compared to 13 per cent of the land surface. Scientists agree that to conserve the ocean’s biodiversity, we need modern management tools, including legally required and globally respected marine protected areas.

What do you think? Send comments to lsmith@tribunemedia.net or visit www.bahamapundit.com.