NCC scientist asks where balance is in NCA changes
(CNS): The balance between development and the need to protect the environment will be impossible to achieve if the proposed amendments to the National Conservation Act pass, according to a member of the National Conservation Council appointed for her scientific expertise. Lisa-Ann Hurlston-McKenzie, a sustainability and climate professional, has asked where that balance will come from if scientists are removed from the National Conservation Council.
Speaking at a press briefing last week about the proposed changes, which the NCC does not support, Hurlston-McKenzie, who has a Master of Philosophy (MPhil) in Environment and Development from Cambridge University, asked how that balance will be achieved.
Eliminating advisory boards, removing the requirement for environmental impact assessments, and removing scientists from the council or not including them in the new appeals tribunal will all create a significant problem when it comes to balancing the need to protect the environment with profit from development.
“I am struggling to understand, whenever anybody says we need to balance development and the environment, how exactly they mean for us to do that if we don’t use… tools like environmental impact assessments,” she asked of those wanting to change the law.
Many countries, even those not nearly as economically advanced as the Cayman Islands, have been using EIAs and other multi-criteria decision-making tools for many years to help them measure balance. Without the science and tools used to measure how things impact the natural world, it will not be possible to achieve the balance that lawmakers, politicians and developers have been saying is currently missing.
“These are the tools that help us get to this question of balance, not just from the perspective of ecological protection, which is enshrined in the constitution, but EIAs also speak to social issues, traffic and noise pollution, as well as the economics,” Hurlston-McKenzie noted.
Those pushing the false narrative that environmental considerations are stalling development claim that development needs to be better balanced between the conflicting demands of profit and protecting the natural world. But balance suggests that equal weight of consideration is given to both sides, when it is clear from the massive overdevelopment over the last two decades that this is not the case.
There is currently no balance, and development wins out almost every time the environment is under threat. But the cries about “balance” have emerged because the NCC has exercised its very limited power to protect the natural environment on two or three occasions out of the hundreds of approved planning applications in recent years.
Hurlston-McKenzie said the term “balance” was “a throwaway” that people use without getting to the crux of what it means. How do we achieve balance when it is evident that we are already “out of balance… and these amendments being put forward are not going to help us get to that balance?” she asked.
She said we need to use scientific tools to achieve that balance. “I think the rest of the country has seen this, otherwise we wouldn’t be saying for the last twenty, if not thirty years, now that we are overdeveloped,” she said. “Why would someone say or feel we are over-developed? We are obviously not achieving balance.”
The official consultation period on the controversial amendments was closed on Monday, just three days before parliament is scheduled to meet when, if the bill makes it through the Business Committee, it will be presented to MPs.
Residents can lobby their MPs right up until the debate, if it goes ahead. However, with just a few days left before that meeting, it appears that the numerous submissions made by stakeholders, none of whom were consulted before the legislation was drafted, will not make a difference to the draft bill.
As such, the only hope that local activists and those opposing the amendments have left is that three months before elections, MPs might be swayed by pressure from voters, listen to their constituents’ objections and vote down the bill.
- Fascinated
- Happy
- Sad
- Angry
- Bored
- Afraid
Category: Land Habitat, Laws, Politics, Science & Nature
She might be book smart, but she isn’t street smart. The people pushing development stand to gain while the environment loses, balance is not a consideration in a corrupt system.
Book smart means that Caymanian families have to wake at 5am to get children to school while the wetlands thrive.
The quality of life for Northside and Eastern districts families have to be a greater concern than the quality of swamplife.
They consulted with lawyers in the UK who backed up their ignorant plans with awful legal provisions. Blackstone Chambers made quite a bit of fees giving them advice to comply with their wishes to gut the law. And then a government legal dept which is too afraid to challenge the crap which was offered.
I encourage voters to text, call, email, WhattsApp your MP and tell them no; you do not support this Bill. Please, registered voters, let’s do our job!
When is enough enough? Wayne your slogan for your up coming campaign states this yet as the sustainable leader you failed the people and failed to protect the environment. We never said we wanted no development, we just phased development to allow for the existing infrastructure to catch up on this oversized population. Our quality life is changing and cayman is no longer the cayman we used to know. I begged for answers on whether you are placing existing properties at risk of flooding along the east west bypass extension and all fell on deafened ears. I am imploring your TCCP group to give us some comfort we will be compensated at market value for our properties when our homes are destroyed from flooding.
The values for the compensation are listed in the draft EIA statement. But due to a lot of woeful cries from stakeholders and road pavers to ‘build it cheaper’ you won’t get any dollars on the sense if you vote back in the corrupt politicos. Wake UP Cayman!
Dont hang your hopes on King Waffle.
The whimsical portrayal by ‘The Adeptus Ridiculous of the Cayman Islands’ masks a darker reality—one where the current leadership’s approach to governance mirrors the hubris that led to the legendary downfall of Atlantis. In their rush to reshape the National Conservation Act, our government is sidestepping the balanced, scientific consultation that safeguards our natural heritage and underpins our democracy. This isn’t just about environmental policy; it’s about the erosion of democratic norms and the peril of sliding into environmental and political autocracy.
By diluting scientific oversight and curbing public participation, the proposed amendments threaten to transform our beloved islands into a cautionary tale of modern-day Atlantis—a paradise lost beneath the waves of unchecked development and short-sighted policies. It’s a path that could lead us not to prosperity, but to irreversible ecological and societal collapse.
The narrative of ‘balance’ that’s being touted by proponents is not a genuine attempt at equitable policy-making but a thinly veiled crusade to prioritize unsustainable development at the cost of environmental integrity. It’s a dangerous game where the stakes are the very survival of our unique ecosystems and the democratic frameworks that protect them.
We stand at a critical juncture, facing decisions that will define the legacy of the Cayman Islands for generations to come. Will we allow the flaming-duck government to dismantle the protections that keep our islands vibrant and viable, or will we demand they deliver principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine sustainable development? The history of failed civilizations like Atlantis should not be taken as mere myths but as poignant reminders of what happens when leaders rule without heed to the consequences of their actions.
The whimsical portrayal by ‘The Adeptus Ridiculous of the Cayman Islands’ masks a darker reality—one where the current leadership’s approach to governance mirrors the hubris that led to the legendary downfall of Atlantis. In their rush to reshape the National Conservation Act, our government is sidestepping the balanced, scientific consultation that safeguards our natural heritage and underpins our democracy. This isn’t just about environmental policy; it’s about the erosion of democratic norms and the peril of sliding into environmental and political autocracy.
By diluting scientific oversight and curbing public participation, the proposed amendments threaten to transform our beloved islands into a cautionary tale of modern-day Atlantis—a paradise lost beneath the waves of unchecked development and short-sighted policies. It’s a path that could lead us not to prosperity, but to irreversible ecological and societal collapse.
The narrative of ‘balance’ that’s being touted by proponents is not a genuine attempt at equitable policy-making but a thinly veiled crusade to prioritize unsustainable development at the cost of environmental integrity. It’s a dangerous game where the stakes are the very survival of our unique ecosystems and the democratic frameworks that protect them.
We stand at a critical juncture, facing decisions that will define the legacy of the Cayman Islands for generations to come. Will we allow the flaming-duck government to dismantle the protections that keep our islands vibrant and viable, or will we demand they deliver principles of transparency, accountability, and genuine sustainable development? The history of failed civilizations like Atlantis should not be taken as mere myths but as poignant reminders of what happens when leaders rule without heed to the consequences of their actions.
THE ADEPTUS RIDICULOUS RESPONDS TO THE LONE VOICE OF REASON:
🟢 “Ah, the noble struggle of a scientist seeking logic in an illogical realm… how quaint, how admirable, how utterly futile.”
🟢 “You ask, ‘Where is the balance?’”
🟢 “I ask, ‘Where is your helmet? Surely, by now, you know better than to wade into this battle unarmored!’”
🟢 “You stand alone, holding the banner of reason aloft, hoping against hope that someone will notice… but let me remind you: YOU ARE IN A REALM WHERE—”
⚠️ Donkey riders craft environmental policy.
⚠️ Orks have seized control of traffic enforcement.
⚠️ Claptrap, a hyperactive, one-wheeled lunatic, is now the de facto Chief of Police.
🟢 “And you expect reason? BALANCE?! In a land where bureaucracy is dictated by those who wouldn’t pass an Ork Fight Club duel at a roundabout?!”
THE ADEPTUS ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN THE SITUATION SCIENTIFICALLY:
⚠️ “You see, dear scientist, reason is not extinct here. That would imply it once thrived.”
⚠️ “No, reason is as rare in this land as an Astartes’ plate armor at a budget committee meeting.”
⚠️ “If it exists at all, it is buried deep, locked away, and only mentioned in hushed tones by those who have long since abandoned hope.”
🔥 “Yet you, brave soul, still speak its name!” 🔥
🔥 “You attempt to introduce logic into an ecosystem ruled by sheer absurdity!” 🔥
🔥 “You are like a lone Adept Mechanicus priest trying to introduce machine spirits to a horde of grots!” 🔥
THE REALITY CHECK:
💀 “This is not a debate. This is not a meeting of scholars. This is a high-speed collision between science and ‘economic progress,’ and guess what? The brakes were removed years ago.”
💀 “Your scientific findings? They will be read only if they fit inside a PowerPoint slide with three bullet points or fewer.”
💀 “Your warnings? They will be met with the vacant smiles of officials who believe ‘conservation’ means ‘putting up a sign about endangered species while flattening their habitat.’”
💀 “Balance? My dear, the only balance these people care about is the one in their offshore accounts.”
THE ADEPTUS’ FINAL ADVICE:
🟢 “Do not seek reason where none exists.”
🟢 “Do not look for balance where the scale has been melted down and sold for scrap.”
🟢 “Instead, embrace your fate! Continue to speak reason, if only for the amusement of those of us who still recognize it!”
🟢 “If nothing else, your words shall stand as a testament, a chronicle, a relic of an age when logic still fought against the tide!”
🔥 “BUT DO NOT EXPECT VICTORY. THIS IS THE WAAAGH (Chaos infused rage and peak madness of a place where the inmates have taken over the asylum and they all wield gatling guns!) OF BUREAUCRACY—AND IT HUNGERS!” 🔥
🚨 SIGNED, SEALED, AND DELIVERED BY THE ADEPTUS RIDICULOUS AND THE ROGUE’S GALLERY OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS! 🚨
Noteworthy intelligence seen here! Thank you for the article and the person making the first contribution.
Ethan Coen penned a poem about the drunk driver has the right of way which is really worth reading. It lament the world of assholery led by kings of rubes we see people flocking to. We worship at the feet of money and power. Without it cults never grow into major religions. The less the care for other people and the environment by rulers the more they are supported. The anti-science, antihuman, anti-environment, anti-minorities, and fearful Zeitgeist of the day can only be fought with what they understand and it ain’t logic or love.
@2.06 Basically what you trying say is she fighting a losing battle? Why dont you talk straight instead of all this Shakespear type BS
Well said Ms Hurlston. Please God may the ignorant hear you …
Don’t sweat it, Jon-Jon has it all under control. Dart told him everything will be alight.
Please God may the corrupt and self-interested hear you and be swayed…
Environmentalism is a business same as any other. Some may be honest but research funding and advancement typically comes with strings attached like the many false pro-covid reports that were debunked.
Funding comes from people who create, innovate and generally work for a living.
Diogenes might as well be asking a snail.
Nice irony but not many get this, look up “the philosopher and the snail”
“balance” is a term that is abused by both sides. Just like “sustainable”.
Everyone says they want balanced and sustainable development but then offer no SPECIFIC points on what that might mean.
Do the developers want x% more planning approvals? Nobody knows.
Do the eco people wany y% of planning denials? Nobody knows.
Both sides just keep shouting that their side is getting the short end of the stick, but nobody is measuring the stick or saying publicly how much of it they want.
It’s pretty much the most worthless discussion we’re having because neither side can actually articulate they’re own viewpoint in any way that the other would be able to find useful.
So, both sides will butt heads indefinitely.
The lady is a more than educated, professional, know who I would listen to!
Dr. Frank is also “more than educated”….. enough said.
Your comment is as throwaway as what you’re accusing others of.
The National Conservation Act is actually the measuring stick. It’s the law. It was designed to provide the critical balance to development by applying basic principals of ecological conservation and data-based decision making.
Balance means respecting commitments to preserve and protect 30% of ecologically important habitats for future generations by 2030 by not challenging the existing laws.
Balance means choosing not to challenge the already legally designated protected areas.
Balance means valuing nature as much as buildings.
Sustainability means building WITH nature, not destroying.
Sustainability means using the tools at our disposal – like science and previous experiences – to anticipate potential impacts and plan to avoid or mitigate them.
Sustainability means not clear-cutting an entire lot and then replanting foreign trees.
Sustainability means respecting setbacks because science has proven that building on active beaches enables erosion.
Sustainability means using EIAs to know the impacts of a project before making irreversible damage.
Not rocket science here…
Laws reflect the wishes of the majority. When Wayne Panton passed this law he was catering to the wishes of trhe extremist environmentalists no the average Caymanian voter.
Did the same thing with the Legal Practitioners Bill. allowed his law firm partners to draft a bill and he brought it to Parliament to ask them to vote for it. IT was riddled with favours for the top three big firms.
Sorry but you’re making the other guys point for him. “Building with nature” how? Specifically?
Using science and experience to do what exactly. Exactly.
Here’s a example of something good and concrete: on these specific coastal areas (shown on a map) you must use turtle friendly exterior lighting and light emission from within the home needs to be X lumens or less by way of window tinting.
Saying “do an eia” or “use science” is not friggin helpful. By the same token the builders are not articulating what they’re after. Do they want to build closer to the water? Do they want to encroach on blue iguana habitat? Just like the eco people they’re not being clear.
So getting yourself all up in arms about how simple it is and it’s not rocket scientist blah blah. If it’s so damn simple why hasn’t it been done here?