Barbados in environmental hot water

The Sanctuary is within the last 240-acre green space on the island's South Coast between the Airport and the capital of Bridgetown, and is also part of the Ramsar wetland recognised by the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.

BRIDGETOWN, Barbados, November 2, 2009 – A Canadian investor who said he pumped US$35 million into creating an eco-tourist facility in Barbados, is blaming the government for the closure of the 35-acre property and he’s taking the matter to a higher authority.

Peter Allard, developer of the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary, has filed a complaint alleging that the government violated its international obligations by refusing to enforce its environmental laws, and as a result allowed increased pollution and land development to damage the Sanctuary.

Notice of the dispute has been filed under the Agreement For The Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments between Canada and Barbados.

“The dispute arises out of actions and omissions of Barbados that have caused or permitted environmental damage to the Sanctuary, thereby destroying the value of Mr Allard's investments in Barbados,” explained the investor’s legal counsel in the complaint.

It added that Allard had developed the Sanctuary into an eco-tourism facility that attracted tens of thousands of visitors from the time of its opening in April 2004 until its closing in March 2009, due to Barbados’ consistent refusal to enforce its domestic environmental laws and to abide by its international obligations under the Convention on Wetlands and Convention on Biological Diversity.

It said that this led to a radical escalation of polluted runoff into the Graeme Hall wetland that serves as a Caribbean flyway stop for migratory birds between North and South America.

“In particular, Barbados has failed to prevent its state agency, the Barbados Water Authority, from repeatedly discharging raw sewage and other effluents into the Graeme Hall wetlands from its South Coast Sewage Treatment facility; repair, maintain or adequately operate drainage structures into the Graeme Hall wetland that regulate water levels, mosquito infestations and the biologic health of the wetland; construct or maintain the bisecting canal in the Graeme Hall wetlands and other roads using appropriate wetland roadbed technologies, causing interruption of wetland water flows and silting of the wetland; investigate or prosecute the sources of runoff of grease, oil, pesticides, herbicides and other effluents from neighbouring areas; and investigate or prosecute poachers that have threatened the wildlife at the Sanctuary,” the complaint specifies.

It continued that Barbados' actions and omissions have severely damaged the natural ecosystem that the Nature Sanctuary relied on to attract visitors.

“They have also unfairly exposed it to substantial environmental liabilities under the Pollution Act as the occupier of the land. As a result, they have violated Barbados' obligations under the Agreement to provide full protection and security to investments of Canadian investors,” it added.

The Sanctuary is within the last 240-acre green space on the island's South Coast between the Airport and the capital of Bridgetown, and is also part of the Ramsar wetland recognised by the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance.

In 2008, Barbados formally reversed the original protective land use policies embodied in the 1988 National Physical Development Plan that showed environmental buffers and low-impact recreational lands around the Sanctuary investment and the wetland. New zoning for the area calls for commercial and residential development for the majority of the space at Graeme Hall, despite a 6,000 signature petition by citizens of Barbados to create a national park.

The complaint said that the amended development plan revoked the previous commitments and legal framework that had been the basis for Allard's investment.

“It did so by permitting development of most of the Graeme Hall green space. This land use change has caused, and will result in, further damage to the Sanctuary through increased run off of pollutants,” the document said.

It added that the Barbados government’s actions had caused Allard “substantial losses”. No figure was given, but the complaint said that the investor would provide further particulars regarding the amount of his monetary losses to Barbados in future consultations to achieve an amicable settlement.

Allard wants the government to either pay compensation or be forced to repair all damage to the Sanctuary caused by its breaches of the Agreement.