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