written, December 2011
Essays in Politics
... the Debate Continues
The trouble (and the good thing) with live TV is that you don’t get much time to think. And when you do get time to think after the transmission is over, you remember all the things you wanted to say but didn’t. The internet revolution lets us put that right. And so, for those who wanted a little bit more, here are some points and responses that I didn’t get the time to say.
The TV debate on the subject of The Environment on Thursday 24th November, was the first debate as such of the 2011 Election Campaign. It was also my first debate as “a politician”. I came at it with confidence but trepidation. The Environment is my subject. I have lived and loved it all my life and studied it at depth. But being the “favourite” is not always an advantage, and I was well aware of this.
I am sensible enough to know that I cannot know everything, and so I made sure I read up and prepared myself with documents and notes.
When I heard that the other debaters were Selwyn Figueras and Rebecca Faller, I was pleased – as we were all friends. We went back a long way and in fact all three of us had been on stage together. Acting together bonds people in a way that any actor will know. The fact that in Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, I had been ‘Dad’, Selwyn my son and Rebecca his wife was somehow comforting. I was looking forward to a sensible debate on facts, leaving the confrontational politics of the past behind. I said as much off camera before we started, although Selwyn didn’t agree.
I should have imagined then that there would be an attempt at trying to discredit me. And it started right away. I resisted the temptation to defend something I didn’t need to defend, but I must admit that my initial intention to meekness got left on one side. Enough about that, though. Now to facts.
The GSD candidate tried to indicate that my past stand against the Government’s plans for the power station was somehow dishonest and inconsistent. Nothing of the sort. First, it doesn’t seem to permeate in the GSD way of looking at the world, that a spokesman for an organisation is taking a corporate line which may or may not reflect his personal stand. It’s called democracy and loyalty. The stand I took, when I was General Secretary of GONHS, was one which questioned the need for the type and scale of power station that was being planned at a time when it appeared that there had been no consideration of renewable energy options. It was a debate that was necessary at the time. The Government was by then having problems in accepting that people can have opposing views, and that all are worthy of consideration. That is the duty of Government. In fact it may have been the debate I opened that made the Government actually look at renewable options and alternative sites.
We lost the argument with Government, and once it became clear that the power station would go ahead at that location, GONHS (and I as its loyal servant), while regretting the impact, stopped opposing it.
In fact, after that, in my personal capacity I absolutely supported it. As a member of the Committee that was looking at compensation and mitigation measures, I worked hard (without remuneration) in preparing and agreeing the options. As a member of the Nature Conservancy Council (again an unpaid position) I was fundamental in ensuring that the Appropriate Assessment process was completed and the necessary authority given.
My stand on wind energy has always been consistent. I do not believe that Gibraltar has room for land based wind generators. They would result in the death of large numbers of migratory species to which we have an international responsibility, but more important they have to take up a lot of room that we do not have. Anyone who has seen the scale of windfarms in the Tarifa area will know exactly what I mean. I therefore objected to a test wind generator as a waste of time and money as there would be no room for a wind farm in the end and it would not pass the necessary environmental assessments. This is called foresight.
The GSLP/Liberal stand now is perfectly consistent with mine. We have to get a power station going now – but we have to vigorously follow renewable options to reduce the life of this fuel burning system as much as possible. And we must do so with courage and conviction and set out to become world leaders in the alternatives.
There were other things said in the debate that there was no time to comment on. For example, Mr Figueras stated that the GSD's manifesto makes a commitment to publish the minutes of meetings of the Development & Planning Commission (DPC). This falls well short of the openness that people are clamouring for and what the GSLP/Libs, if voted in, will deliver. The planning process in a 21st Century Democracy, which Gibraltar will become on 9th December if we win the elections, has to be open. I have been on the DPC for years and I would so much have liked the people to see openly what it has been like. Don’t get me wrong. There are good professionals on it, but the Government steer and the evident goings on around and outside the Commission have worried me.
Once again, Selwyn tried to discredit me on this, after over a decade of attending meetings (again unpaid) and fighting – with passion, yes – for the good of Gibraltar’s environment. I failed to sway some decisions – like the blot on the skyline that is Clifftops – but that I can assure you Gibraltar would be much worse, and much more of a concrete jungle, had I not been there to fight the corner on behalf of my former colleagues in the environmental movement. That a GSD representative should try and suggest that I had done anything but what I thought was best was unbelievable.
Mr Figueras also made a rather bizarre comment regarding the extension of Bunkering to the East Side of the Rock arguing that, should an EIA recommend favourably, then the prospect of East Side bunkering could be used as a bargaining chip with Spain. Let me get this straight: Are we bargaining with Spain over what happens in OUR waters? Are we spending taxpayers' money on Environmental Impact Assessments only to then reject the idea anyway in order to please the Spaniards? Is all of the aggravation caused to beach users, residents of the East Side, NGOs and other concerned citizens nothing more than a cynical ploy to then reject the idea anyway for supposed political gain when negotiating about waters that are rightfully ours?
If Selwyn ad-libbed this frankly absurd idea out of desperation, then he was reckless beyond reproach, towards both his party and Gibraltar. If this is official GSD policy, then we need to seriously ask ourselves once again what the 'safe pair of hands' claim is all about.
Besides all of the above, the question of East Side bunkering requires an Appropriate Assessment under the EU Habitats Directive. Rather than explain in more detail, I'll let you all join Mr Figueras in looking this one up!
Another point that comes to mind that Mr Figueras mentioned was the cost of Commonwealth Park. Selwyn suggested £25 million. This is just about what the past Government has spent so far on two holes in the ground – the Theatre Royal and the airport tunnel. At least we’ll end up with a green area and some parking! And with the right kind of plants.
I was disappointed that a number of issues weren’t mentioned, like fishing and the use and protection of our waters and marine resources, the ‘apes’ and the gulls. Too bad. I was well prepared for those too.
I was also perhaps a little kind to the GSD. I had a few extra bits of evidence of failing to keep to commitments and style of Government.
I’ll just mention two here.
When the prison was designed, it would have required a number of environmental assessments, which were not carried out as Government made a commitment regarding compensation by creating additional habitat for Barbary Partridges. The prison is now running and the commitment has not been kept.
Another was in relation to the dumping of rubble in an area of land at the base of the North Face south of Devil’s Tower Road. As part of the discussions in relation to the tunnel, it was indicated that the loss of a large area of natural vegetation at the aerial farm would be lost but that this area at the foot of the cliff would be conserved and enhanced as a small protected area where species from the aerial farm could be transplanted. Government instead dumped rubble there for two weeks, making a second rubble mountain. All they gained was two weeks’ worth of rubble, and at the expense of a patch of land where no building could have gone and could easily have been left to nature. When GONHS complained, Government issues a scathing press release (http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/latest_news/press_releases/2009/83-2009.pdf) which stated:
“These deposits do not represent the “dumping of rubble,” but the creation of a new Rock Fall Protection Bund.
The new Rock Fall Protection Bund now being created at that location will not be “at the base of the North Face” of the Rock as GONHS alleges. Instead it will occupy a narrow strip (alongside the wall bordering the road) of what GONHS describes as “one of the only remaining areas of habitat”. Once the mound acquires the required volume it will act as a rock fall protection measure similar to the one recently created at the exit to William’s Way Tunnel opposite to the former St Peter’s School at Catalan Bay. This bund will be subsequently be covered with earth and vegetated to replace the natural area that is being lost.”
Needless to say, the earth and vegetation never materialized, and as for the “narrow strip”, you judge for yourselves from the picture below.
The press release also went on to say:
“A new project is currently under consideration by Government that will provide a long-term solution to the disposal of rubble in Gibraltar. Once a decision has been made to proceed, the details will be announced and it will become obvious that GONHS’ allegation that Government does not have “any strategy” for the long-term disposal of rubble is unfounded.”
That was in April 2009. Over two and a half years later, we still await this project and that strategy.
I trusted once. I honestly and reasonably spoke the truth, trying to advise quietly, behind the scenes, for the good of Gibraltar. This was ignored, then rejected. Now they try and throw it back at me. And they complain that I speak with passion?
Look, the electorate can trust who it likes, and can speak for itself. Nature and the environment have no voice other than the voice we give it. So I don’t apologise for any passion, for any energy or sense of justice. I am sorry, but I care more for Gibraltar than I do for myself.
And Gibraltar, its wildlife, and the environment on which we rely for our very quality of life, just can’t afford to keep trusting.
