The following are comments made by the Hon. Edison Baird, MA, the Elected Representative for the Road North Constituency, in which the Road Salt Pond is located. Mr. Baird made these statements at a meeting of the Tourism Investment Committee, held on Tues, Apr. 3rd, 2012.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the Tourism Investment Committee (TIC) for affording me an opportunity to participate in this discussion regarding a proposal by a foreign investor for the possible reaping of salt from the Sandy Ground Salt pond.
To avoid any misunderstanding, I would like my comments and questions to be recorded in the minutes.
I received the two studies: a review of the Road Salt Ponds Anguilla, British West Indies by DSB International Inc. David Butts, dated June 13th, 2009 and re: SITE VISIT REPORT TO ROAD SALT POND BY OCEAN EARTH TECHNOLOGIES, dated July 29th, 2009; at 4:00pm on Mon 2nd April 2012. I was also informed that the meeting which would also involve these studies would be held at 1:30pm the following day – Tuesday, April 3rd.
Given the historical importance of the Sandy Ground Salt Pond; its biodiversity; and the technical nature of the two studies, I do not believe enough time has been afforded to participants, including me, to examine these studies so that one can participate fully in the discussions. I, therefore, believe that we should delay discussion for one week. This will also enable the committee to answer a number of questions that I intend to pose that go to the very heart of the proposal made by the foreign investor.
I seek answers to the following questions:
1. These two studies were done in 2009, what were the comments, if any, of the following bodies:
a) TheAnguillaNational Trust
b) The department of the environment
c) The Planning Department
2. Were these two studies peer reviewed? If so, can you kindly provide us with the necessary information.
3. a) Who selected the author of each of the studies, the Government or the Developer?
b) Who paid for these studies to be done?
4. What was the reaction of the then Government to these studies?
5. Has standard procedure been followed in respect of these studies? The normal practice is that Government selects the Company to do the Environmental Impact Assessment; the Developer pays for the study.
6. I do not believe that any of the two studies in question can be sensibly and objectively accorded the status of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). This is made perfectly clear in the study entitled a Review of the Road Salt Pond, Anguilla,British West Indies. On page two, the author of the study categorically states “this report is a sketch and rough draft providing ideas and thoughts to develop the site into a viable salt operation”. In the other study entitled, Re: Site Visit to Road Salt Pond, the author states “The site visit to the Road Salt Pond identified several key factors that need to be evaluated prior to completing the final design of the Salt Works salt mining operation at Road Salt Pond.” The rest of the report appears to be commentary on the study entitled, A Review of Road Salt Ponds Anguilla,British West Indiesby DSB International Inc., David Butts.
I strongly disagree with the reckless and irresponsible approach of Mr. Haydn Hughes, the Parliamentary Secretary for Tourism, in respect of this proposal by a foreign developer, to reap salt from the Sandy Ground Salt Pond. In the House of Assembly on Dec. 20th, 2011, Haydn Hughes made it clear that there was no need for the Government to entertain an Environmental Impact Assessment.
He had this to say in the Anguilla House of Assembly during the budget debate on Dec. 20th, 2011:
And Madam Speaker, a little just before the Member for Valley North sat, he spoke about the planned project, which we had not gone into much detail with, which was proposed to the Government of Anguilla, but is very exciting about reaping salt out of the Sandy Ground Salt Pond and he said of the importance to do an environmental impact assessment.
But the truth of the matter is this, that for many years, long before we were born, long before our parents were born, they were reaping salt from these ponds inAnguilla. Anguillais basically the place where you got salt from, good quality salt, especially from that Sandy Ground Salt Pond. And that Sandy Ground Salt Pond, the people reap salt up until 1986 in that Sandy Ground Salt Pond without the use or need for environmental impact assessment. And what was the damage that was caused to that salt pond and the surrounding neighbourhood due to the reaping of the salt from that pond?
God made the seawater, God caused the condensation, and God caused the salt to be formed and people went and take out the salt. So tell me, how is that detrimental to the Sandy Ground Salt Pond or the surrounding areas? You are not putting any chemicals in it, you are not digging any holes, you are not mining. So where is it, so why is it so important to do environmental impact assessment for that Sandy Ground Salt Pond?
Obviously,Anguillais committed to the protection of its environment, while at the same time striking a balance between conservation and development. An Environmental Impact Assessment is meant to put the decision makers in a position where they would be aware of the pros and cons of any proposal.
To protect the environment, the Government of Anguilla, over the years, has done the following:
On the 4th October 2001, the Executive Council passed the NATIVE PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITAT CONSERVATION (BIODIVERSITY) POLICY. It represents a “commitment to the objectives designed to safeguardAnguilla’s local biodiversity.”
1. Anguillais also a signatory to the St. Georges Declaration of Principles for Environmental sustainability in the OECS. Section 11 is designed to “ensure the sustainable use of natural resources” and section 14 is designed to “protect and conserve biological diversity.”
2. On the 26th September 2001,Anguillasigned up to The Environmental Charter for the UK Overseas Territories. This charter contains a number of important points designed to strike a balance between conservation and development while at the same time protecting the environment.
I set out below all the points enumerated in the environmental charter signed by the British Government and the Anguilla Government on the 26th September 2001:
1. To recognize that all people need a healthy environment for their well-being and livelihoods and that all can help to conserve and sustain it.
2. To use our natural resources wisely, being fair to present and future generations.
3. To identify environmental opportunities, costs and risks in all policies and strategies.
4. To seek expert advice and consult openly with interested parties on decisions affecting the environment.
5. To aim for solutions which benefit both the environment and development.
6. To contribute towards the protection and improvement of the global economy.
7. To safeguard and restore native species, habitats and landscape features and control or eradicate invasive species.
8. To encourage activities and technologies that benefit the environment.
9. To control pollution, with the polluter paying for prevention or remedies.
10. To study and celebrate our environmental heritage as a treasure to share with our children.
Unfortunately, the Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Haydn Hughes, has uncritically accepted the two studies provided by the developer. On the 23rd February 2012, an email was copied to me from him. In the said email, he states:
“in the Nettles report, [a review of the Road Salt Pond study] it was saying that the project could be done without detrimental environment impact to Road Bay, Road Salt Pond or the Sandy Ground Community and the project would be a positive long-term environmental solution for the Road Salt Pond.”
Later in his email, he concludes by saying that “this project has tremendous potential for us and we need to move quickly forward with it.”
When these comments are coupled with his opposition to any environmental impact assessment, it creates a worrisome situation, not only for the people living in Sandy Ground, but Anguillians in general.
The above environmental matters were being discussed at a meeting of the Tourism Investment Committee on Tues, Apr. 3rd, 2012. However, all non-members were asked to leave by the Chairman of the Committee. The non-members were, myself; Avon Carty, President of the Anguilla National Trust Council; and Farah Mukhida, Executive Director of the Anguilla National Trust.
As the Representative of Road North Constituency and the Minister for Health and Social Development, I shall continue to ensure that proper procedure is followed, especially in conservation and developmental matters, and will keep my Constituents duly informed on all matters.
– Press Release
(Published without editing by The Anguillian newspaper.)
