NCC corrects false narrative on DoE director’s power
(CNS): The National Conservation Council has refuted false claims and misinformation being circulated on social media that incorrectly suggest the director of the Department of Environment has unprecedented powers under the National Conservation Act (NCA) that elevates the post-holder above Cabinet and enables whoever holds the job to make decisions without accountability.
The NCC said this is completely untrue and is hitting back against the many “factual inaccuracies and incorrect assumptions” being made as the development lobby pressures the government to gut the legislation.
In a statement correcting the false claims, the NCC said that neither it nor the DoE director has any power over Cabinet, which remains the decision-makers in all things related to the law.
“The National Conservation Act does not make Cabinet subservient,” the council said, noting that the law actually prohibits its members from directing Cabinet. “All decisions of the NCC under section 41 may be appealed to Cabinet. The Cabinet approves protected areas which are recommended by the NCC, and Cabinet approves Conservation Plans establishing areas of critical habitat after approval by the NCC, and this is after public consultation and input.”
The legislation allows the NCC to establish interim directives creating critical habitat and other conservation measures in an urgent or emergency situation. However, these directives must be immediately reported to Cabinet, which can repeal those temporary protections at any point.
The idea that the opinion of the director is somehow supreme is also part of a deliberately false narrative peddled by those wanting to weaken the law, not out of any concerns about the democratic process but because they believe that anything that could see development directed or controlled could cut profit.
It is not practical for the NCC to make technical recommendations on the more than 500 planning applications that require input from government agencies, and the DoE director cannot complete the submissions and recommendations alone.
“This task requires expertise and skills drawn from the whole department, and as such, the technical review committee comprised of relevant DoE scientific experts reviews applications to provide the best technical advice,” the council explained. “The NCC has delegated the issuing of permits and licences to the director — again, there is a team within the DoE who process the applications, based on Licensing Directives gazetted by the NCC.”
The council explained that this is not unique. “Several government entities necessarily depend on the work of the civil servants in their respective departments to fulfil their mandates and inform decision-making,” the NCC said and pointed out that the Central Planning Authority has delegated approval of certain types of applications to the Director of Planning.
The NCC noted that other government departments and technical experts make submissions to the CPA regarding developments, but these are never questioned. For example, the Water Authority has the legal power to make recommendations about wastewater treatment, disposal and water supply that the CPA must adopt, even if that means developers must change their plans.
Another example is that under planning regulations, the CPA must refuse the construction of swimming pools unless they have a certificate signed by the senior medical officer of health.
The false narrative that the NCC has delegated all its authority to the DoE director is also wrong. The Cabinet appoints eight members of the council; four others are appointed by virtue of their civil service roles, and one member is appointed by Cabinet based on a nomination from the National Trust.
The NCC is prohibited by law from delegating certain functions, such as orders and directives, to anyone. Only a subset of the NCC’s other functions have been delegated to the director. At the time of drafting the NCA, the legislative drafter advised that delegations need to be made to a “legal entity” that can be held accountable.
A department is not a legal entity separate from the Cayman Islands Government, whereas the director of a department is a recognised legal entity within the CIG representing that department, the NCC explained.
Like all civil servants, the DoE director is not elected, but she remains accountable in her capacity as a technical adviser to the government and has a duty to serve the people and country, like many other senior officials.
One of the most important roles of the National Conservation Council is to make decisions based on evidence. Historically, many decisions relating to development have been made on an ad hoc basis without considering the full implications.
The consequences of this have been made clear in recent years by the significant increase in flooding after relatively benign weather events and the worrying erosion of Seven Mile Beach. This is on top of the cultural impact that ill-considered development has had in terms of the loss of access to the beach for local people.
The NCC said its mandate is to supply objective, robust, science-based advice and guidance to decision-makers regarding proposals that may adversely affect the natural environment before irreversible impacts are created.
“The NCC has a primary function of making recommendations, not taking decisions,” the council stressed. “It has very limited powers to make actual decisions.”
The DoE has certain enforcement roles, such as the management of permits for fish pots and the possession and use of spear guns, all of which are based on the need to limit overfishing supported by robust scientific data.
The NCC decides, based on a technical screening opinion produced by the DoE, whether an environmental impact assessment is needed to provide sound and robust advice to the originating entity, whether that is Cabinet, the CPA, the NRA or any other entity. However, the results of an EIA are not binding, and it is still up to the CPA whether planning approval is granted with or without conditions.
Only when a project poses a direct threat to a protected area or critical habitat of a protected species can the NCC direct the CPA to refuse an application. But that critical status was not conferred by either the NCC or the DoE but Cabinet following various rounds of public consultation.
There is nothing unusual or inherently undemocratic about the conservation law. It was passed to ensure that the environment was finally given the same weight in the decision-making process as all other factors. But because it directly impacts landownership and is relatively new, it has been wrongly demonised by those seeking to maximise profit from developing raw land, regardless of the detrimental impact development has had on the Cayman Islands’ natural habitat.
As the government battles to water down the law to meet the demands of unelected and unaccountable developers who have powers of influence over it, there is growing public concern that the people will be the losers once again in the fight to conserve what little is left of Cayman’s once stunning natural environment.
See the NCC’s full statement here.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: development, Land Habitat, Local News, Science & Nature
Just to say hope the general public sees who the mastermind is running the Government , and holding the cards.
The others just follow like sheep to the slaughter.
“The National Conservation Council has refuted false claims and misinformation being circulated on social media that incorrectly suggest the director of the Department of Environment has unprecedented powers under the National Conservation Act (NCA) that elevates the post-holder above Cabinet and enables whoever holds the job to make decisions without accountability.”
Very biased reporting. The Government has not released details of any proposed changes and the entire opposition to the alleged “gutting” of the Act is based on Huff and Puff from Wayne Panton who is desperate to re-establish his relevancy after being removed as Premier and who now realises that his re-election in Newlands is hanging in the balance.
This is Opposition politics 101 and Wayne should be called out for his reckless behaviour.
I understand that the Government has a legal opinion that suggests there are concerns with Cabinets authority in the Act. I give you an example in relation to Management Plans:
“The Council shall submit the management plan, together with copies of all the written objections and representations received, to the Ministry for the approval of the Cabinet and shall not adopt the plan if, within a period of sixty days from the date of submission, the Council receives written notice from the Cabinet setting out reasons why the plan as submitted should not be adopted.”
The section effectively gives the Cabinet 60 days (Imposes a deadline) to respond to the Council and if they do not respond for whatever reason, the Council will proceed as if it has the Cabinets approval.
This is not how our system works, no law can constrain Cabinet in this way and I dare say this particular section can be challenged on constitutional grounds.
Further the fact that Cabinet has not responded in the required 60 days in no way conveys their approval. Silence is not consent.
This is but one example, there are others that need to be reviewed.
So Wayne is reckless because he is calling out this corrupt initiative which is against the interest of the people? He is doing what he should do. He is speaking up because of members of this initiative like you thinking you can pull the wool over the voters eyes and do something before they are aware of it! Mr Panton has been quiet long enough. You are afraid of the people knowing the truth and you should be!
You think you can label this article as biased reporting because it doesn’t fit the narrative that you want? Be afraid because the people are not buying any of your stories! The people of this country can see and feel the truth around them every day and they are fed up.
Re 8:41, the draft management plan is advertised in a newspaper for two weeks.
It is then involved in public consultation for a minimum of 28 days (so rounded to one month) and subsequent to that it might be refined in light of any public comments or objections (which might take a further two weeks at a minimum) before it is sent on to Cabinet for a further potential 60 day consideration period.
The bottom line is that a Management Plan consideration by the public and Cabinet collectively) would likely take approximately four months at a minimum.
The timeline outlined is significant. Why should that not enough time for Cabinet to provide a reason for not adopting the proposed plan? Seems entirely reasonable to me!
Holding Cabinet to a deadine and then going ahead with the approval by default is entirely unconstitutional. Name one country/democracy where the Cabinet is subordinate to an agency that is constitutionally subordinate?
yet the CPA board to above everyone even cabinet and the NCC.
Developers own the new government, and they are the CPA
PS. As the original poster, I am all for conservation and proper planning and against overdevelopment but I also recognize that things must be done according to the laws and constitution.
We are in for some turbulent times. Good governance and transparency are always best for any government. When we see the blatant disregard for peoples intellect, properties and way of life then these MPs have no use for the voters who voted them in. It is high time we the people stand united and set the bar that this self and special interest comes to an end.
I would guess that nearly everyone knows the truth. Those that stand to profit parrot the party line. Those that are outside of that circle of influence often wish for environmental protections to ensure the viability of our natural resources for future generations, because — as we’ve seen virtually everywhere in the world — once it’s gone, it never comes back again.
Both ‘sectors’ of people have no direct influence upon government beyond the initial vote that elects the Members of Parliament. Those elected members take that as a confirmation of their vision, and that is where our representation ends.
If you work for government, you are protected. That is the closest anyone comes to being actually represented.
Already friends and family from the UK and elsewhere are no longer interested in vacationing here; if they have to be in an urban sprawl, they choose places more carefully planned, with more accessible natural environments. What we once had that attracted people is nearly lost, and it won’t take much, imo, to finish it off.
At the next election vote for a politician that isn’t corrupt morally or otherwise……..oh wait
We need to gut the government! They are most harm than good at this stage in the game and are clearly compromised. Any district voting back in their current representatives need to have their heads examined.
Fact-based conversations, data-driven decision-making, good governance – all sadly lacking in our leaders.
All of those things are incompatible with personal profit……hence absent or at best lacking
That is fake news! Honorable Bush & Saunders are way smarter than you trouble makers and they know how this will go. Development all the way! CPA won’t back down.
The only hope for Cayman is a responsible and effective Civil Service together with concerned citizen action groups.
The politicians and most developers simply have no interest in any kind of reasonable conservation and preservation measures – they are in it for short term profits and nothing else.
If it was left solely up to business interests, the world would still be spraying DDT and putting lead in gasoline.
Cayman’s political class are basically stuck in the 1950s.
Thank you for the incontrovertible truth! With limited exceptions, it is a pity that we pay so much money to representatives who deride it for their own benefit and the benefit of some unprincipled developers who care only about their pockets!
Replying to post at 12:43 it seems that the politicians are governed by the developers. None of them give two hoots about the environment. We should be going to public meetings to hear from the people instead of reading about this change in the law.
these MP consistently spewing inaccurate information is just more proof that they view us as idiots that won’t fact check and just run with whatever narrative they create.
Well said, unfortunately there is a large portion of the voting public that won’t fact check and will just run with whatever narrative they create.
I think you can amend your statement with ‘some’…aren’t idiots and ‘some’…will fact check. The majority of their supporters lap up the daily drivel without question, only some will question it.
Let’s replace ‘some’ with ‘too few’.
Politicians, as a breed, always lie. They lie about everything. We live in an era of political performance theatre and politicians know that a lie that is constantly repeated will quickly become a truth in the minds of their supporters.
McKeeva won WBW by only 27 votes in 2021, and probably mail in ballots from Jamaica and Honduras.