Environmental Impact Assessments: Guiding Island Development

Posted July 4, 2007 The cool sea breeze masks the penetrating heat of the late morning sun. The small boat cuts through the four-foot waves effortlessly, leaving behind a quickly-disappearing wake. Tracing the outline of the island, the boat weaves in and out, carefully avoiding the fragile coral reefs that protect the coastline but still managing to come close enough that the colour gradients in the cliff walls, the low-lying buttonwood growing (somewhat unbelievably) on the rocky shoreline, and the odd goat scampering on the most awkward of angles can all be seen. The view of the island from the water offers an interesting perspective. Thousands of pounds of wave pressure have eroded the stone walls to create dark deep caves. White sand beaches line kilometres of the shoreline, each containing small stands of palm trees. Tree-lined rocky shores with their pointed limestone tips, worn away by thousands of years of waves and rain, create a richly textured surface. But the view is also disturbing Wooden frames mark out new housing and villa developments. Parts of the sloping cliffs have been carved out by property owners who want their own private beaches. Resorts and hotels line white sand beach after white sand beach. There are no setbacks to these buildings. The vegetation that holds the sand and soil together have been removed so that the beach is not even a step away from the back patio doors. Everyone wants their own piece of paradise. Over the last twenty years, Anguilla has become undeniably popular. Tourist numbers have sky-rocketed and the island’s gross domestic product has responded in kind. Indeed, according to national statistics, between 1985 and 2005, economic activity on the island increased from EC$47 million to just under EC$355 million. This 7.5-fold increase can be largely and directly attributed to a dramatic expansion of the tourism industry and of the other related and supporting industries and sectors (most notably construction). While such economic development has contributed to an increase in the standard of living for Anguillians and their perceived quality of life, it has not come without a cost. The direct and indirect impacts of such development on the island have been significant and can be seen in the overexploitation of natural resources, the destruction of sensitive land, coastal, and marine habitats, the complete removal of plants from large expanses of land, and the physical alteration of the topography of parts of the island through the in-filling of saltponds and the mounding of dirt to create higher elevations. Such development has also contributed to an increase in the amount of nutrients in what is supposed to be low-nutrient coastal waters through grey water and sewage seepage, the erosion of beaches, the displacement and mining of sand (legally and illegally), coastal siltation and dredging, and physical damage to coral reefs from anchors, divers, snorkellers, and reef walking. At the same time, there has been a growing awareness among some Government officials and some members of the public that development does come with an environmental price and that writing blank cheques for development will create an ecologically-poor and financially-strapped country. While translating this awareness into calculated action has been difficult and slow, one tool that the Government has been using to determine the impacts of development on the island is the environmental impact assessment (EIA). According to the United Nations Environment Programme, an EIA “is a tool used to identify the environmental, social, and economic impacts of a project prior to decision-making.” Clearly, “environmental” means much more than just the natural world that surrounds us. “Environment” refers to the social, cultural, economic, political, and natural contexts of particular projects, programmes, sites, or societies; each is connected and integrated into the other. Similar to a three-legged stool, if any one of these aspects is removed, the structure will topple over because it becomes imbalanced. Although thoroughly understanding the interconnections among the social, cultural, economic, political, and natural may not be entirely possible (there is so much that still remains unknown) or even necessary, recognising that they must all be considered is one of the first steps towards initiating development strategies that will allow for long-term national gain. Every development project has impacts on the natural environment and the communities in which it is situated. The purpose of the EIA, therefore, is to determine those potential impacts and to measure them in terms of their level, extent, and direction (positive or negative). EIAs should also provide guidelines on how the negative impacts identified, will be dealt with in order to limit irreversible harm and damage. In Anguilla, when an individual or company (the Project Proponent) is interested in initiating a project (whether it be a resort, villa, house, golf course, or business), they must submit an Application to the Department of Physical Planning. The Department reviews the Application and may ask other Government Departments and statutory bodies, including the Anguilla National Trust and the Anguilla Tourist Board to comment on this Application. The Department then forwards the Application and comments to the Land Development Control Committee (LDCC). The LDCC may approve the Application as submitted, approve it with conditions (which may or may not include the completion of an EIA), or reject it. As the law currently stands in Anguilla, an EIA for foreign- and locally-led medium- or large-scale development initiatives is not automatically required. Thus, with no set policy in place, the decision to request an EIA ultimately lies with the LDCC. This has led to some proposed development projects requiring EIAs and others not needing to go through the process. In some cases, the Project Proponent has taken it upon themselves to conduct EIAs without the Government of Anguilla asking that they do so. While this undoubtedly reflects an understanding by the Developer that their project will have impacts, without a Terms of Reference that guides the process, outlines key areas of concern and focus, and is signed by both the Government and the Proponent, recommendations made within the assessment may not necessarily be implemented or followed. This disjoint has led to a call by a number of agencies that an EIA should be required for any project or initiative should any Government Department call for it. Given the small size of the island and its complex coastal environment, there are some basic and fundamental issues that should be considered within the EIA of any proposed development initiative. Location, ability to respond to climate change, level of habitat alteration and impacts on the surrounding environment and the island as whole, labour requirements (during all phases of the project), coastal access, and pressures on existing infrastructure, at the very least, should be considered. Decisions on whether the project should be approved should be based on the level of impacts, the ability to mitigate the negative ones, and consideration of what is best for the entire island, not only for a small group of individuals who may benefit in the short- (or maybe even long-) term to the detriment of the larger population. The Government and the public both need to ask how much development (particularly along the coastline) this island can support and how quickly it can absorb change before it reaches its breaking point. And it seems as if we are getting closer and closer to that point. Indeed, problems related to both environmental degradation and social equity (of local residents as well as of foreign workers) have become increasingly evident over the last few years partly because not enough consideration is being given to the long-term implications of today’s decisions. Operating on four or five-year political cycles does not tend to work within the environmental (social, cultural, natural, and even economic) realm. This is particularly true for the natural environment: it has taken thousands of years for it to reach the state at which it now exists. It is effective in adjusting to small, incremental shifts but it is not very good at responding to extreme and rapid changes. When operating within five- or even ten-year timeframes, we fail to acknowledge the complexities and vulnerabilities of the natural world; it has become exceedingly apparent that this does not work – we need to project into the future. If we are to be realistic about what is appropriate and sustainable, we may need to make some difficult and not-so-popular decisions. While this may not seem at the outset as politically-wise, if the decisions made are in fact for the greater good and if Anguillians will reap the benefits in the future, then making sound ecological and social decisions should also be politically beneficial. It is critical, therefore, that everyone is aware of what those benefits are and why specific decisions are being made. Education is key. If an EIA or any other tool is to be truly effective in guiding the decision-making and development processes and if we are truly interested in conserving the natural environment and living in harmony with it, then we have to be open to following an integrated management framework that requires being aware of the social, cultural, economic, political, and ecological conditions in which we live. We also need to decide where this island is heading in terms of its development approach and who is responsible for directing that vision. Anguillians should feel empowered to take on that role; it should always be remembered that Project Proponents need to ask permission to undertake any development project and it is only the Government of Anguilla – the people’s representatives – that can grant that permission. To help decide whether a proposed project should be approved, the Government can use EIAs as a tool to measure the potential environmental impacts and social benefits. Within the EIAs, themselves, and the decision-making process, all five aspects of the environment should be considered and weighted – the existence of positive impacts (for example, economic investment) should not automatically counteract the existence or severity of negative ones (for example, degraded water quality). Clearly, EIAs can be useful but they must be objective, comprehensive, and balanced if they are to inform sustainable national development.