EA Bulletin - Greenwich Still Threatened

From: intrust@isn.net
To: PEI Environmental Network <peien@isn.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 09:51:41 -0800
CC: Sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sust-mar-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
Greetings and Happy New Year to everyone!

I would like to correct some of the errors/omissions in Earth 
Action's bulletin on Greenwich:

> >By now most of you have heard the Parks Canada announcement (December
> >20/99) that plans for a hotel on crown land adjoining the national park at
> >Greenwich, PEI have been scrapped due to public pressure, although the
> >interpretive centre will go ahead.  In the media coverage this was
> >presented by Parks Canada and Island Nature Trust as one of those win-win
> >situations.  

Island Nature Trust has never said this is a "win-win situation".  
Rather, we have said that removing the hotel from development 
plans for parkland adjacent to Greenwich, PEI National Park is a 
good - albeit small - first step.  A second, more significant, step 
within the Park is the cap of 75,000 visitors for year for all three 
properties that comprise Greenwich, PEINP.  Depending on which 
of the previous estimates you use, this is 25% to 70% lower than 
was to have been allowed.  Obviously, this annual cap alone is not 
sufficient to protect the site; it must be translated to a reasonable 
daily limit, strictly enforced and lowered if necessary.  One part of 
the ongoing work that conservation groups must do is ensure the 
daily limit is not too high, that the cap is stricly enforced, and that 
any changes to the limit (up or down) are based on good science.  
Island Nature Trust has consistently said that much work remains 
to be done to ensure Greenwich is adequately protected.   Parks 
Canada has demonstrated time and time again that they need 
constant pressure from a number of sources to adequately 
implement even basic protection requirements.  We are under no 
illusion that they can be left alone to look after this important site.

> >clients.  To make matters worse, the land next to the interpretive centre
> >is for sale.  This critical piece of property lies between two of the three
> >parcels of land that comprises Greenwich.  APM says its Greenwich
> >Settlement will be built within walking distance of the Park, the
> >interpretive centre and the beach.  It would be fair to say this land fits
> >the bill for APM's resort plans.

Interestingly, this is exactly the same argument being used by 
those local residents who are pro-development and feel the hotel 
should have gone ahead as planned.  Parks Canada's 
announcement does not change anything that could happen on 
private land in the area, and APM is by no means the only 
developer looking for land on the Greenwich Peninsula.  Prohibiting 
the hotel on Parks Canada land means one less development for 
the peninsula.   Had the hotel gone ahead on the park land, that 
would not have stopped (and indeed may have facilitated) additional 
hotels and other developments on adjacent properties - 
development that may proceed but will now be instead of, rather 
than in addition to commercial development on the park land.  

Commercial development on the land that is currently for sale 
would be disastrous for Greenwich; this is a most attractive parcel 
for APM or any other developer.  Unfortunately, the current lack of 
any land use planning for the peninsula means that groups and 
individuals will be forced to oppose development proposals on a 
case-by-case basis, requiring much time and resources.   This is 
why we have (and continue) to call on the Provincial government to 
involve conservation groups in the land use planning process 
currently underway for this area.

  >The Island Nature Trust has the only seat on the Greenwich 
Advisory
> >Committee and supposedly represents the conservation voice.

Do not confuse this with representing the conservation community; 
our seat on the Advisory Committee (a body which appears to be 
ineffective anyway) is to represent the views of Island Nature Trust 
as developed by our Board of Directors.  We have been intimately 
involved with Greenwich for over a decade, have consistently fought 
for its protection, and have undertaken the most recent research at 
this site (vascular floral inventories in 1998 and 1999), placing us 
among the groups most familiar with this area on a number of 
levels.   That said, any National Park Advisory Committee should 
not be limited to one conservation group and at one of the first 
meetings I asked that additional representation from environmental 
interests be added.  This request was denied.  To my knowledge, 
no other group has requested representation.  

> >has gone along with the recreational beach development and constructing the
> >interpretive centre next to the Park.  After the hotel announcement the
> >Trust's executive director, Kate MacQuarrie, was on a panel with a Parks
> >Canada official on CBC-TV and there was no discussion about the beach and
> >interpretive centre (built adjoining Park property) drawing tens of
> >thousands of people into the Park. 

During that interview I specifically mentioned that 75,000 people per 
year would be permitted access to the Park at Greenwich. The 
level of discussion is at the direction of the CBC host.  We see the 
interpretive centre as an important means to control access to the 
site, and to educate people about this internationally important and 
unique area.  We recognize that some disagree with this, however 
given the existing development within the Park at Greenwich we 
see no biological reason to eliminate the centre, and see some 
good reasons to proceed with it.

With respect to the existing development at Greenwich, on March 
25, 1999, Island Nature Trust made four recommendations to Parks 
Canada:
* Set and enforce a daily visitor cap;
* Formally and publicly state how visitor use of Greenwich will be 
monitored (including biological indicators, acceptible ranges, and 
action to be taken if an indicator moves outside an acceptible 
range);
* Prohibit access to Greenwich via water;
* Eliminate food services, parking lots and buildings from the 
Central area.  

As a result of our 1999 research in the Schooner Pond Area, we 
are developing additional recommendations specific to that property.

Some movement is being made towards the first two 
recommendations, although much work remains to be done.  The 
latter two were rejected outright by Parks Canada.  Given that 
construction in the Central Area is nearing completion, we turned 
our attention to the other three.  Access by water is a serious 
concern as it creates an infinite number of unregulated points of 
entry to the Park.  At the moment, Parks Canada is committed to 
encouraging sea kayaking and canoeing, with the associated 
access (p.19 of their Interim Management Guidelines for 
Greenwich).

> > Don't let the PEI government off the hook.  Pressure the province to
> >immediately implement strict zoning regulations to control development
> >outside the Park.

Agreed.  Greenwich does not yet have adequate protection, and 
there are several things that must be put in place to achieve this 
including strictly enforced and monitored visitors limits within the 
Park and strict zoning regulations for lands outside the Park.  
Island Nature Trust will be among those continuing to call for these 
provisions and we encourage others to do so as well.

Wishing everyone the best for the New Year!

Kate MacQuarrie
Executive Director
Island Nature Trust



-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
The preceding message was posted on Sustainable Maritimes (sust-mar)
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

A word from our technicians ...

Many subscribers have limited space for incoming email. Please remember to
limit the SIZE of your message. Messages longer than 10K cannot be posted.

CCN users cannot read messages written in html, or with other bells and
whistles. Please send messages to sust-mar in basic TEXT format.

Finally, please respect the privacy of others. Sust-mar messages are seen
by a lot of people and are accessible in our archives to anyone in the
world. Therefore, if you are forwarding a message that was sent to you,
please delete the names of other recipients before forwarding to sust-mar.

Similarly, if your message is going to other places, please send sust-mar
a separate copy. Our ~150 readers are worth the extra seconds it takes! :)

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects