Email

Print

Norwegian Cruise Line's Harvest Caye Cruise Port and Docking Facility, which is one of the country's biggest cruise tourism projects is more than 70% complete. It will open for business later this year, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the Department of the Environment cut corners to fast track the project.

That's the decision that Justice Courtney Abel handed down today after months of extensive litigation brought to the court by the Belize Tourism Industry Association.

The BTIA sued the Department of Environment, or (DOE), and the National Environmental Appraisal Committee, called (NEAC), accusing them of breaching the laws governing the Environmental Impact Assessment, known as an EIA. Now, for viewers not familiar with an EIA, it's a study done by all private developers to prove that a development won't irreparably harm the environment.

2 years ago in January of 2014, Norwegian's representatives presided over a public meeting in Independence Village, where their EIA was presented before the DOE. In that public meeting, the company was thoroughly thrashed by the residents of the south who exposed that their study for Harvest Caye was inadequate.

A few months after that, the project got the Environmental green-light, despite the BTIA's insistence that the public ought to be able to peruse the additional studies that NCL's technicians did.

The BTIA challenged that decision in court by way of judicial review before Justice Courtney Abel, and they submitted evidence that the DOE, skipped steps when it did not adequately publicize the additional studies. They further accused the DOE officials, headed by Chief Environmental Officer Martin Allegria, of shortening the period in which members of the public could submit their comments, observations and critique of the new environmental studies.

Well, today, after much deliberation, Justice Abel delivered his judgment, saying quote, "I have found that there was breech of the EIA regulations… The content published was deficient…" End quote. Speaking specifically about the time that the public was given to digest the new environmental studies, he said that he was in "utter disapproval of what happened", and that the EIA regulations were quote, "short circuited".

So, what's the consequence of the judges ruling? Well, the project is being allowed to continue, which BTIA says it never intended to try to stop. To "discourage such an event in the future", the judge has ordered that the Government and NCL must pay BTIA's court costs of $50,000.

Is that a significant penalty for such a successful multinational company and a Government which didn't follow regulations carefully? That's what we asked the BTIA and their attorney outside of court shortly after. Here's what they told us:

Osamy Salas - President, BTIA

"We are very happy with the way this went with the decision made. I think the point is made that the court ordering that the government of Belize bares all cost to us; it is a vindication of our efforts, so we are very pleased with the decision. This case was about the future. The prime minister himself has pointed out that the tourism industry is the foundation for the present and the future, well-being and prosperity of the nation. We at BTIA feel that our natural resource, the health of our environment is the foundation of the tourism industry."

Godfrey Smith, SC - Attorney, BTIA

"This whole case was about public consultation. The developers put out a document, you all were down south, it was rubbished by everybody down south and they put together substantial additions but didn't put it back to the public for consultation. If consultation is to be meaningful you have to put it back. The judge found on all those points that there was failure to and etc. but look, the most important thing is sending a message to DOA with that issue of 50,000 dollars cost to be born. Next time that happens follow the procedure; don't short cut the process no matter how big the developers, that's really the point of the whole thing."

Daniel Ortiz

"Sir, would you agree that at the highest point that the judge's decision is a scolding to the government and not a spanking?"

Godfrey Smith, SC - Attorney, BTIA

"Well it depends. 50,000 dollars could be regarded as a spanking but yes; look the judge made it clear that he is expressing his disapproval and displeasure of how the matter was handles. He's made it clear that there were breaches so any self-respecting authority should not do that again which was the whole point of the case."

Osamy Salas - President, BTIA

"The way the judgement went if in the future the DOA and the NEAC do not oblige as they legally should, they can be brought to court again. It's essentially they were wrapped on the knuckles. "

The judge is allowing NCL and the Government to make submissions on a timeline of payment for this court cost.