Further submission from Colin Williams,
Turk and Caicos Islands
1. INTRODUCTION
Written evidence was provided to the FAC on
30 January as part of the reported UK Overseas Territories' investigation
into governance and possible corruption.[298]
Initial evidence focused on the Governor's granting
of a mining license and navigation agreement, on behalf of the
Queen, along the seabed here. Local concerns then were:
— excessive spoil extraction (>lm
tonnes);
— planned destruction of a coral reef
(Star Island); plus
— questionable ethical behaviour in
the process.
2. SUBSEQUENT
EVENTS
Hopefully you have been apprised of the Minister's
response, media coverage etc:
— early February in TCI (News Weekly)
and UK (Telegraph);
— response from MERC on 27 February
suggesting that environmental challenges with regard to Leeward
Development were reckless and irresponsible!;
— letter to the Environment Minister
raising environmental/planning concerns about millions of tons
of sand at Emerald Point and questioning planning process permitting
building on Nature Reserve north of Mangrove Cay;
— published letter to the Editor of
the News Weekly concerning the Mineral/ Navigation agreement
and its implications with regard to the protection of Leeward.
In February residents of Leeward Estate and
surrounding areas continued to suffer severe noise and dust pollution,
unsocial working hours and the destruction of their local infrastructure
(damaged roads; broken bridge) which was never designed for commercial
development.
3. EVIDENCE TO
THIS COMMITTEE—12
MARCH
I am pleased to give evidence; applaud measured
development and appreciate the opportunity to share our islands
"beautiful by nature". However recent events question
whether we are pursuing development as part of a rationale economic
policy? The benefits (to belongers) are unevenly spread and the
beneficiaries of exaggerated development are a variety of ex-patriate
construction workers; foreign developers and perhaps politicians—who
make statements about environmental protection, sustainable development
and professional governance—but to little effect.
As a UK citizen, but permanent resident of TCI,
I recognise that we all share responsibility. How can we expect
a population of 8,000 souls to control effectively the rate and
management of sustainable development in a "top ten"
tourist mecca? How do we expect the elected representatives here
to resist the temptation to approve seven storey hotels; Dubai
style reclaimed reefs and yet give proper consideration to an
environment developers are intent on destroying.
How do local politicians maintain a balance
between individual needs/rights versus the commercial interests
of wealthy developers? How do they balance the benefits of developing
Water Cay and Star Island versus the need to protect TCI's unique
environment. How do we allow the whole community (not just the
belongers) to help form opinion within this global village?
In this situation can the UK influence the distribution
of Crown lands; the granting of critical planning approvals and
ensure that the value created by these actions benefits all belongers
in a way untainted by political intrigue. In this environment
as with other Crown colonies what is the role of this Committee,
the Governor and the Privy Council.
4. REVERTING
TO THE
MARINA AND
STAR ISLAND
DEVELOPMENT
So how might this Committee help to resolve
these local issues? Leeward residents want Emerald Point rid of
its millions of tonnes of sand— preferably by sea to the
Atlantic not through Leeward Estate; they want to stop the invasion
of their environment and to "renourish" their right
to the peace and tranquillity that first brought them to TCI;
they want to save the Nature Reserve in Mangrove Cay from the
planned invasion by developers and to protect the Leeward channel
from mismanaged attempts to change the forces of nature. We need
a transparent planning and development process that helps to balance
the environment vs development.
This is not about Leeward Marina. The Marina's
recent license is nothing more than a navigation agreement with
incidental rights for sand extraction. It is not a license to
mine millions of tonnes of sand although that is how it has been
interpreted by the very Ministers who approved it.
6. TODAY'S
ISSUES AND
QUESTIONS
Today's FAC question appears to be "is
TCI biasing local development and the planning process corruptly"?
If so can the UK parliamentary process and the Foreign Affairs
Committee help to resolve the problem? Investigation of allegations
of corruption is a legal, potentially criminal process and it
is easy for your committee to initiate that process (perhaps via
the UK's CID) should you choose. My concerns are focused less
on corruption and more on balancing sustainable development with
improved and visible environmental practices. Not a "tree
hugger" or a disgruntled resident but a believer that TCI
needs help to remain `beautiful by nature'!!
Major TCI developments in future need far better
public consultation; published information and a visible, independent
planning process to ensure that contentious projects (such as
Star Island) are debated publicly in advance, approved and reported
into the public domain. This involves:
— improved oversight—eg of mining
licenses and project say >$5 million;
— regular published information on
proposed major projects;
— reports on planning approvals;
— guarantees and appropriate performance
bonds for infrastructure restitution etc;
— recognition of an independent role—DOP
should not be defending developers!;
— public participation and local ombudsman
(perhaps appointed by Governor?); and
Thank you for your interest/attention.
13 March 2008
298 Ev 259. Back
| 
