Activists call for referendum on B3 choice for EWA

(CNS): Sustainable Cayman, the Cayman Islands’ leading environmental advocate group, is calling on the government to ask voters what they want regarding the East-West Arterial Road extension. Cabinet has said that it picked Route B3, but given the planning ministry’s misleading claims that the government selected the “environmentally optimal” choice for the road, the activists want the people to decide.

Sustainable Cayman said the decision was “politically motivated” and potentially disregards the needs of Caymanians, and argues that large-scale infrastructure projects should always consider the wider impact on the environment, economy and social fabric.

“With immigration growth projections upwards of 250,000, there is a real danger of Caymanians becoming an even smaller minority in their own country, risking erosion of their cultural identity,” a spokesperson for the eco-activists stated.

“Given the lasting impact of the EWA project, this decision should not proceed without direct public input. We call for a referendum question to be added to the ballot, allowing the people to choose the most sustainable option between Routes B2 and B3, based on the expert Shortlist Evaluation Report.”

The group contends that this would ensure that the “decision reflects the will of the people” and considers the community’s genuine needs, not just political or private interests.

The EWA project has raised significant concerns from the get-go, given the implications for the Central Mangrove Wetlands and, in the absence of any other traffic mitigating measures, that it will not resolve Grand Cayman’s congestion problem for commuters from the Eastern Districts.

Those concerns have grown significantly over the last few weeks after it was reported that the CIG had chosen Route B3, which will pose a greater threat to the environment than B2, a slightly shorter, cheaper and greener choice.

“While we recognise the complexity of these decisions, the claim that Route B3 is the best environmental option feels incomplete and prompts critical questions about the decision-making process,” the sustainable spokesperson said in a press release last week.

“The government’s assertion lacks essential hydrology and peat depth assessments, making it difficult to accept Route B3 as ‘environmentally optimal’. While the government claims that Route B3 offers favourable construction conditions, this assertion is unsubstantiated without complete design and hydrology analyses,” the activists said.

Given the threat to the wetlands, which are an essential part of Grand Cayman’s ecological system, providing flood protection, carbon sequestration, and species habitat, the decision to route through these sensitive areas, even if skirting direct impact on National Trust land, raises serious concerns about the government’s commitment to environmental stewardship.

Labeling Route B3 as environmentally optimal is “misleading and irresponsible” amid a global climate emergency, the activists said, noting that it prioritises short-term infrastructure goals over long-term environmental sustainability, as highlighted in the RSPB Route Corridor Optioneering Report.

“It risks irreversible damage to our island’s natural resources and undermines our resilience to climate change,” they said.

Sustainable Cayman believes it is crucial that the long-term consequences of fragmenting the central wetlands are properly considered. The activists warned that the decision will shape the Cayman Islands for generations and urged the government to reconsider and conduct comprehensive assessments.

“This moment calls for collaboration, partnership, and a commitment to true democracy,” the non-profit organisation said, and called for the road to be part of any referendum government plans. Topics that have been floated as potential referendum questions include the proposed cargo port.

“We ask the government to engage with the public, value transparency, and choose a path that ensures the well-being of our islands, communities, and future,” they said.

The government’s claims that the road will be environmentally friendly because of less greenhouse gas emissions are contrary to the findings of the EIA and the work of various experts. Sustainable Cayman is not the only one asking for a more comprehensive analysis.

The potential reduction of traffic emissions has to be weighed against the environmental cost of peat removal and potential industrial activity along the route, which opens up the wetland for more development, a stated aim of a number of leading members of the community and former politicians, as noted in a recent case before the Central Planning Authority.