The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE Bahamas “cannot completely remove” transparency and public consultation from the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) approval process, advocates are warning, while conceding that the present ‘Town Hall’ format may not be the best.

Rashema Ingraham, head of the Bonefish & Tarpon Trust's Bahamas initiative, told Tribune Business that reforms to the EIA regulations - which eliminate mandatory public consultation on assessments dealing with development and investment projects - must not be used merely to stifle dissent and feedback from local communities, environmental activists and others.

Instead, she argued that the Government and Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) focus on changing the consultation mechanism used to obtain stakeholder views and concerns, acknowledging that the present Town Hall-style public forums often became “adversarial and confrontational” - especially when the projects involved are controversial and generate mixed, emotional views.

Similarly, Casuarina McKinney-Lambert, executive director of The Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation (BREEF), told this newspaper that while she and others welcome the “risk-based” approach unveiled in the EIA regulations reforms, which proposes to place the greatest attention and scrutiny on projects that present the greatest impacts, “efficiency should never come at the expense of transparency”.

She and BREEF called for greater clarity on which projects will now be subject to EIAs, and argued that those with the potential to impact sensitive sites such as coral reefs, mangrove forests and seagrass beds should face “mandatory” public consultation.

Both environmental advocates spoke out as the Government’s amendments to the EIA regulations, which accompanied the 2026-2027 Budget, appear set to take effect from Wednesday, July 1. In particular, they “revoke and replace” section seven of the existing regulations to remove the requirement that public consultation on EIAs be mandatory.

Instead, this is now left to Dr Rihanna Neely-Muprhy, DEPP’s director, and her discretion to determine. “On the successful submission of environmental documents, the director shall determine whether a public consultative process is required, and advise the project proponent of the process under which such consultation shall be conducted,” the new EIA regulations state.

This makes public consultation optional, and whether it occurs will seemingly by decided by DEPP’s director on a case-by-case basis. Other concerns relate to the removal of mandatory public notice requirements when EIAs and Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) are submitted for review, which some fear could allow controversial projects that carry potentially major impacts to slip through the regulatory process unknown to the public and without challenge.

“There’s definitely concern in that area,” Ms Ingraham said of the EIA regulations amendments. “What we hope is that if they are going to remove that part of the process then there is another mechanism that allows for feedback or consultation, such as a regulatory Board or committee, which is able to provide input.

“That would comprise of the non-governmental organisations (NGOs), whether top tier or second tier NGOs, as well as local government administrators or some representatives from the Chamber of Commerce. There still needs to be some level of engagement by the locals, by the stakeholders. I think the way the process is now is not as transparent as it can be, but there should not be full removal of the opportunity for persons to provide review and input.”

Ms Ingraham added of the present Town Hall meeting-style public consultation: “I don’t think the outcome was what they had intended initially. It was almost very adversarial and confrontational but, on the tail-end, you had many NGOs or conservationists providing feedback by e-mail on the project and that should still be made available.

“There needs to be consultation. The way in which that is done needs review, so this public forum may not necessarily be the right mechanism of consultation…. It’s not even about projects slipping through. It’s about allowing Bahamians to have opinions and being able to express themselves on a particular project whether they are on the island being impacted or another island is experiencing it.

“The way forward should be a review of the process so that we still allow for a transparent process. We need to decide what the right mechanism of public consultation is going to be. It cannot be removed completely. The consultative process needs review. The public forum may not have been the best approach. We need to go back and reconsider what public feedback looks like.”

Ms Ingraham added that The Bahamas cannot afford “to lose the opportunity for a wide range of views” when development projects come up for consideration, and said this nation must also be “mindful” of its international environmental obligations such as the Escazú Agreement, which focuses on access to environmental information, access to justice in environmental matters and public participation in environmental decision-making.

This was echoed by Ms McKinney who, in a written reply to Tribune Business inquiries, called on the Government to ensure DEPP is “adequately staffed, funded and equipped with the technical expertise necessary to assess projects, monitor compliance and enforce environmental standards”. She added that this is “no small task” in an archipelago such as The Bahamas.

“The Bahamas' natural environment is the foundation of our economy and our way of life. Healthy coral reefs, mangroves, wetlands, seagrass beds and coastal ecosystems support tourism, fisheries, biodiversity, climate resilience and the well-being of our communities. The decisions we make today about environmental governance will have lasting consequences for future generations,” the BREEF chief said.

“BREEF supports an environmental assessment system that is efficient, science-based and proportionate to environmental risk. We welcome aspects of the proposed amendments that strengthen environmental screening by focusing greater attention on projects with the highest potential environmental impacts.

“A risk-based approach is consistent with international best practice and allows regulatory resources to be directed where they are needed most. Likewise, greater emphasis on operational environmental management and monitoring throughout the life of a project has the potential to strengthen environmental stewardship beyond the approval stage. However, efficiency should never come at the expense of transparency or meaningful public participation.”

Ms McKinney also called for EIAs, Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), approvals, monitoring and compliance reports to be made available online via a registry.

“BREEF believes that there should be clarity around which projects require an Environmental Impact Assessment, and those affecting coral reefs, wetlands, mangroves, seagrass beds, marine protected areas and other environmentally sensitive ecosystems should also continue to be subject to mandatory public consultation,” she said.

“Where consultation may be waived, there should be clear, objective criteria and the reasons for that decision should be publicly available. Predictable and transparent decision-making benefits government, developers and the public alike.”