Pending amendment to Fisheries Act angers residents
The root of this concern is nestled in a document they claim, was sneaked to them from sources close to the Ministry of Natural Resource and Labour. The document is titled, ‘Virgin Islands Fisheries (Amendment) Act, 2015'
It must be established that this document has been circulating throughout the territory over the past two weeks and when it reached the hands of this news site early yesterday June 5, 2015 valiant efforts were made to reach Dr Pickering for a comment but were futile. Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Natural Resources and Labour Mr Ronald F. Smith-Berkeley was also unreachable.
The document seeks to amend the Fisheries Act No 4 of 1997. “That is another attempt to have us blindfolded and kill us the local fishermen, that amendment is again an attempt to suppress the poor fishermen and people and empower the rich and famous, the rich white friends,” alleged a Mr Vanterpool of Anegada.
The intended amendment
According to the document, it seeks to insert the following as a new section in 13A of the existing Fisheries Act. It reads:
- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act, Regulations or Orders mad thereunder, Cabinet may on the advice of the Minister and after consultation with the Chief Conservation and Fisheries Officer, grant a permit under this section to a person who wishes to carry out a development on an area declared under this Act, Regulation or Order made thereunder, as a fishing priority area, a protected area or a marine reserve.
- Cabinet may not grant a permit under this section except were Cabinet is satisfied that the development to be authorised is consistent with the overall objects of this Act, Regulations and Orders made thereafter and shall grant the permit subject to such terms and conditions as Cabinet may consider appropriate.
- Without limiting subsection (2), Cabinet shall, in considering an application for a permit under this section, A. consider the effect of the proposed development on a fishing priority area, a protected area and a marine reserve declared under this Act, Regulation or Orders made thereunder in the locality or region in which the proposed development is intended to be carried out. B. consider the effect of the proposed development on any conservation and management measures applicable to the whole or part of the land to which the proposed development relates. C. consider the effect of the proposed development on the critical habitat of threatened or endangered species found on the whole or part of the land to which the proposed development relates. D. take into account the economic significance of the proposed development to the Virgin Islands. E. take into account any other issues as Cabinet may determine.
- An application for a permit under this section shall be made to the Cabinet Secretary in such form and containing such information as may be prescribed.
- For the purpose of this section ‘Development’ has the same meaning assigned to it under section 2 of the Physical Planning Act, 2004 and includes development taking place on sea and the sea-bed.
- For the purpose of this section ‘sea’ and ‘sea-bed’ respectively have the same meaning assigned to them under section 2 of the Physical Planning Act, 2004.
- For the removal of doubt, nothing contained in this section shall be read as exempting a person from the provisions of the Physical Planning Act, 2004 with respect to the granting of development permission under that Act.
Hon J. Alvin Christopher Speaks
Second District Representative, current Chairman of the People’s Empowerment Party (PEP) and Territorial At Large candidate, Honourable J. Alvin Christopher alluded to this document at a recent campaign meeting on the island of Anegada when he said, “For some time now I have been getting calls with concerns about a pending piece of legislation that I understand if the NDP government returns to office are hoping to implement.”
According to Hon Christopher, this pending amendment has struck great fear in the heart of the people of Anegada and Virgin Gorda, “because it’s based primarily on the industry that they have sustained themselves on for decades.”
He said he did recall hearing the Minister, Hon Pickering, making mention of it in the House of Assembly, though he couldn’t recall a date, that they were looking at the possibility of designating certain areas as fishery protected areas. This prompted a loud outburst from one in the audience, “no way”.
‘Good rich friends’
“On the onset, it may seem that there is some merit to what the Minister was saying but when you cut away all the chase and get to the real meat of the matter, what you come to realise quickly is that the area they have envisioned to do that is only giving certain protection to certain developers and that is frightening, very frightening,” Hon Christopher had stated.
He said it is his view the legislation can stay the way it is and not be amended as he said, like the residents, it is being recommend for the benefit of their (NDP) ‘good rich friends’ and for this “the NDP should not be allowed to return to power”.
.png)
.png)
.png)
Follow Us On
32 Responses to “Pending amendment to Fisheries Act angers residents”
This proposed amendment to the "Fisheries and protected Areas" is a big deal. It seems that some of us don't understand what's involved. We need to get rid of our biases and open our minds to other possibilities.
Most of the BVIs National Parks are on Virgin Gorda; (who knew that?). The only National/protected area in the area of
the Ministers of lands/water rights/seabed rights/fisheries/fishing grounds/beaches "rich white friends", is Prickly Pear island, located just outside of the Gun Creek dock/harbour. It is also located smack between Necker and Mosquito Islands and Brand has been eying it for quite sometime. Charles T***s has also ben eying it also and even approached the previous administration about leasing it.
In the opinion of many, especially fishermen, the proposed amendment to the fisheries Act is to enable the Ndp to turn over Prickly Pear island to Richard Branson and his "rich white friends". Why would the Done Deal doctor refuse, (over his dead body , he swears), to renew the lease of the local investors, (already there), who have invested in the Sand Box for these past several years, creating jobs and paying into our tax and social security system?. It is understood that when the owner of the Sand Box, (a tourism business, providing services to yachtsmen and the smaller cruise ships), asked the min****r about how they will get their investment money back, the man told her, "you have already made your money".
"Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. World English Bible Wisdom is supreme. Get wisdom". Proverbs 4.7
)
How can he even bring about such a contentious piece of legislation when he has not consulted with the people it will affect most?
Go get yourself a copy of the fisheries protected areas and a copy of the new "suggested" fisheries protected areas. Study all of them closely and then ask yourself why. The geography is rather obvious. Who owns the land and the smaller islands nearby. What developments are being considered and where?
We are not fools. Information is critical. People need to be aware of what is going on BEFORE the election.
THE Man IS OBVIOUSLY LYING THROUGH HIS DAM TEETH AND LAUGHING AT US. HE IS AWARE OF THE FISHERMEN PLIGHT BUT MONEY IS THE ONLY THING HE CARES ABOUT. HE FORGOT THAT HIS FATHER WAS A FISHERMAN TOO. WE NEED HONEST PEOPLE IN THE HOA -NOT THOSE WHO WORKING FOR SELF INTEREST. THAT WHY I VOTING FOR HANNIBAL AND OTHERS WHO WILL DO THE PEOPLES WORK
This is Pickering's way to give prickly pear nattional park to branson?
I do not want to hear nothing from the opposition you all sat down and id not ask Kedrick one question in three and a half years now you all talking p1ss. Alvin you did not ask one question in three years you all are shameful you all just aint the answer for this country either.