For the last two days, expert testimony was being recorded by the Supreme Court in the case of the Belize Tourism Industry Association (BTIA) and the
Government, on behalf of the Department of the Environment (DOE) and the National Environmental Appraisal Committee (NEAC), and Belize Island Holdings
Limited, the owners and managers of the Harvest Caye project on behalf of Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL) has been particularly dramatic.
The BTIA won leave for judicial review last year. The Department had approved the environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the island after receiving
NEAC's recommendation, but the BTIA successfully applied to the court on two grounds: that the terms of reference and legal requirements were not met,
and that there was not enough opportunity for the public to properly review, be consulted with and comment on the EIA.
7 News was in Independence Village for the fiery public consultation on the project, where about 300 residents - a figure disputed on the witness stand
by the Chief Environmental Officer Martin Alegria who says he counted about 500 - got a chance to have their say, but BTIA says there should have been
a public hearing.
They pointed out several deficiencies and lacunae in the public notices for consultation and announcement of the 330 page EIA, which was partially
based on a previous EIA and was completed in a month in its first draft.
But BTIA very nearly lost the case today. That because when arguments began on Tuesday, it was announced that the Association's immediate past
president Herbert Haylock made himself unavailable for testimony, although his affidavit was the key underpinning evidence in support of the claim. The
BTIA scrambled to support the testimony of their expert witness. When the case resumed this morning Senior Counsel Andrew Marshalleck, who appeared on
behalf of the BTIA in place of colleague Godfrey Smith, successfully applied to have current president Osmany Salas take the witness stand with his
affidavit made as evidence, over objections from the attorneys for the Government and NCL/Island Holdings.
After he was finished with cross-examination, the attorney for Island Holdings, Eamon Courtenay, made a surprise move: he tried to get the case struck
out! He argued that the BTIA did not present enough evidence to substantiate their case - with Haylock's testimony out, there was nothing challenging
the EIA, environmental compliance plan and terms of reference for the EIA - the framework on which that important document must be done.
But he was rebuffed by Justice Abel who allowed the case to continue. We spoke to both attorneys this evening.
Aaron Humes - Freelance Reporter
"Are you satisfied that your case has been made out to date as to whether or not the NEAC and the DOE complied with the regulations and the
environmental protection act in how they handled this matter? "
Andrew Marshalleck - Attorney For BTIA
"I think the substance of the complaint squarely before the court and the procedural missteps we seek to rely upon have been highlighted. So they're
there."
Eamon Courtenay - Attorney for Belize Island Holdings
"We said to the judge that they had an evidence deficit and therefore the matter should be struck out. The judge disagreed and said - no let's proceed
with the trail and so we continued this afternoon."
Aaron Humes
"So in terms of the evidence over the 2 days from their experts, from yours, from Mr. Alegria, from Mr. Salas. How do you assess the case at this
point?"
Eamon Courtenay
"Well I think the first issue with respect to their expert is that we spent quite a lot of time at cross examination and we started from the
proposition that something is fundamentally wrong for you to be an expert. To give your opinion on the environmental impact assessment or some parts of
it and she has never visited the caye. So that was a starting point. I think that we had sufficiently put her evidence under a microscope - hopefully
to raise doubt in the judge's mind. Then they have Mr. Herbert Haylock, who was their witness who was suppose to come and decided not to come. So Mr.
Salas was called upon at the last minute to testify on the behalf of the BTIA. And as you can imagine Mr. Salas had not read any of the documents -
maybe one or two, he said he skimmed one document. So his evidence was not the most compelling in the circumstances. So from an evidential point of
view, I think that the case put forward by the BTIA was not strong. Let me make this point, when you challenge a project, when you challenge a decision
you must do it because you're serious. The witnesses for the BTIA came to court repeatedly and said to the court that they do not oppose to the
project. They have never applied for an injunction to stop the project and so they have passed on resolution in opposition to the project. Hence the
question, what is this all about? As I said to on of the witnesses is this an academic exercise? A master class? Because they said they are concerned
about procedure. Courts do not set up for teaching people about procedure."
The case continued with testimony from Belize Island Holdings' expert witness William Bratt from Miami, Florida and Chief Environmental Officer Martin
Alegria concerning the timeline for the development and implementation of the EIA and environmental compliance plan, which Courtenay and Government
attorney Nigel Hawke argued was the document now in force for the completion of the project, by which developers must abide. Courtenay told us that
even if the court were to agree with BTIA the removal of the EIA neither changes anything nor stops the project.
Email
Print