Caribbean islands surrounding St. Maarten banning single-use plastics while St. Maarten stays behind
Dear Editor,
Nature Foundation Sint Maarten is again urging Parliament to ban single-use plastics, such as plastic bags, straws, cups and cutlery, and Styrofoam food containers. Recently many neighbouring Caribbean islands have already banned or announced to ban single-use plastics in order to protect the environment and decrease plastic pollution.
Single-use plastic pollution is one of the biggest environmental catastrophes of this generation and these plastics are abundantly littered on St Maarten. Single-use plastics are also a major contributor to the current situation at the Philipsburg landfill.
On St Maarten we see massive amounts of single-use plastics in our natural areas, including the ocean and Simpson Bay Lagoon, along roadsides and on our beaches every single day. The day after we conduct a beach clean-up, beaches are flooded with our trash and plastics all over again. We keep on cleaning our beaches and nature areas; however, it is an endless fight as people keep on littering and leaving single-use plastics behind.
Several nations who banned single-use plastics are seeing significantly cleaner neighbourhoods and environments, creating a healthier and more attractive nation. St. Maarten needs a ban on single-use plastics, we do not have any more time and we cannot afford to wait until tourists stop visiting our island due to the disturbing waste and littering situation.
Three Caribbean countries – Dominica, Jamaica and Turks and Caicos – started the New Year environmentally and banned single-use plastics since the 1st of January. Several Caribbean nations were ahead of these islands and already implemented bans on single-use plastics in the past couple of years.
Since 2012 Haiti issued a ban on the importation, manufacture or sale of plastic bags and disposable foam products, in an attempt to address the massive litter problem and protecting the coastline, shore and remaining mangrove forests. St. Vincent and the Grenadines already banned the import of Styrofoam since May 2017, as Styrofoam is made of fossil fuels and synthetic chemicals, which may leach if they come in contact with hot, greasy or acidic food, adding an unwanted dose of toxins to your drink or food.
Aruba followed and banned single-use plastic bags since 2017 and will extend its ban to a total ban on all single-use plastics in 2020. Grenada had begun with a ban on the import of Styrofoam in 2018, in February this year they will ban all single-use plastics such as shopping bags, cutlery, plates, straws and cups. Already in 2016, Antigua and Barbuda started its ban of single use plastic grocery bags and recently their Prime Minister called on all nations to join them in banning the use of single-use plastics.
But so far St Maarten stays behind, as no concrete steps are taken yet to ban single-use plastics from our island and safeguard our nature, environment marine life, wildlife and protect our own health against these destructive plastics.
The Bahamas will ban single-use plastics, such as shopping bags, food utensils, straws and Styrofoam food containers in 2020. The Bahamas also want to make the release of balloons into the air illegal, as they end up in our oceans, releasing toxins and injuring marine life. Likewise, Belize pledged to ban single-use plastic items by April this year, which has been welcomed by residents as Belizean shores are at risk from the enormous floating island of plastic in the Caribbean Sea and plastic harms marine and wildlife.
Also Anguilla started the process to ban single-use plastic items; the prohibition will include single-use plastic shopping bags, utensils, and polystyrene foam containers. Furthermore, Barbados declares a complete ban on the importation, retail, sale and use of petro-based single use plastic products within effect of 2020.
Not to speak about countries outside the Caribbean which already banned single-use plastics, such as Rwanda, a pioneer in banning single-use plastic bags, is now one of the cleanest nations on earth.
Even the European Commission is in the process of banning single-use plastic products and putting the burden of cleaning up waste on manufacturers in an effort to reduce marine litter. Governments in more than 60 countries have introduced levies and bans to combat single-use plastic waste, according to U.N. Environment; it is time for St Maarten, which struggles with poor waste management and large amounts of littering, to do the same.
At least 9 million tons of plastic enters the world’s oceans each year, a rate that has increased 100 times in the past 40 years, and 96 per cent of all marine biodiversity is vulnerable to this plastic pollution. Half of all sea turtles mistake plastic for food and 90 per cent of all sea birds ingest plastic. If current trends continue, a lot of marine life will die and there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.
Single use plastic bags, plastic straws, plastic cups, balloons, cutlery and Styrofoam food containers are some of the most environmentally damaging products on our island. These items do not biodegrade and stay in the ecosystem and oceans forever. They release a variety of chemicals during degradation, which have a negative impact on organisms, us and our ecosystems. New research even shows that plastic breakdown accelerates greenhouse gas production in the environment.
Nature Foundation St. Maarten
Dear Editor,
Normally when I put fingers to keyboard to write something like this it is easy for me. The issue is usually so clear and undeniably obvious that the words flow almost as if by magic. The dump burns for years and everybody says it’s impossible to stop. Then, one day, a judge says, “Stop it or I’ll fine you a zillion dollars a day.” Suddenly, overnight , the impossible problem is solved and the dump doesn’t burn anymore. One can only ask why that solution wasn’t so obvious for the last two years. Obvious question. Obvious letter to the editor pointing out the manifest incompetence and abject stupidity of those in charge. It writes itself.
Not so this time. This is so serious that it makes my stomach hurt to even talk about it and the situation so manifestly evil that it defies imagination that any civilized government can allow it to happen. Yet here we are.
Acknowledging beforehand that I have no access to anything factual concerning the case, this newspaper reports that a certain boat has been seized by the relevant Asset Seizure Team relevant to a certain ongoing criminal investigation. On the face of it, it would be hard to say there is anything wrong with the concept of grabbing the assets of those individuals that have been convicted of a crime and have derived those assets through ill-gotten gains. But that’s not what is apparently happening.
The notion of innocent until proven guilty or the notion of due process is out the window. Is the accused guilty of anything? Who knows? There has been no trial and no conviction nor course of appeals that I am aware of. Just a host of accusations.
Beyond that, now comes a second individual with what he claims is irrefutable evidence that the asset in question is not even the property of the accused. Well, that must be easy to resolve, you might think. All that needs to happen is that there is a court hearing and expert witnesses are called to forensically examine and then testify as to the veracity of the affidavits and the provenance of the documents.
But wait. There is no such court case. There is, apparently, a SECRET hearing during which no defense can be offered. A single judge, IN SECRET hears the case put forth by the prosecution and says, “He’s guilty because I say so,” and no written verdict is issued.
For those of you too young to remember, there was another country like that some years ago. It was called Nazi Germany. It was there that legitimate government and the rule of law were simply abandoned and the notion of an honest and transparent law enforcement and judiciary gave way to one of simple thievery, thuggery and deception. If the government wanted your assets, they just took them and had no explanations or justifications to make to anyone. The trials were secret and were usually held after the fact and were a foregone conclusion because there were few brave enough or even alive to protest.
What is happening here now, IF it is happening as reported, is both remarkably similar and a travesty of human rights by any imaginable standard.
I wrote this all before once in this space when this whole asset seizure thing was put forth. I made the case then that due process where the accused has the God-given right to face his accuser in a public court where a legitimate and compelling case must be made BEFORE any seizure takes place is the basic prerequisite of ANY citizen of a civilized society. I say that again and I stand by that statement and I am appalled that the legal community here has not arisen en mass to haul government before the World Court of Human Rights and set this right.
That’s what happened in Nazi Germany as well. The only people that could do something were too cowardly to act. You would have thought that that particular history lesson would have been well learned by now. Wrong again.
The irony here is that I am a hard-core, right-wing, law-and-order Republican, yet here I am writing like some left-wing, liberal, California Democrat.
The thing is that fundamental Right and Wrong are concepts that need to transcend political expedience. This Asset Seizure scheme, the way it is organized now, is so comprehensively wrong that I am staggered that individuals in the Prosecutor’s Office that have genuine degrees in the Law and are smart and competent professionals would allow themselves to be shamed by allowing this system to exist in its current guise.
If this guy is guilty as you say, and if he has these assets derived from criminal activities, then go to court in public, let the cases be heard and all the witnesses be presented and meet some genuine and objective standard of proof. That’s your job.
You don’t do it alone in front of a friendly judge that you have in your pocket. You also don’t just grab someone’s property and then say, “Better hurry up and prove something before we sell it off to fund some politicians’ cell phones and junkets.”
I implore you. Fix this now. Be honest and be fair. That’s all anyone asks and all anyone deserves. Be as tough as you want, but do it in public with the complete due process that a civilized society demands. Because the way it is right now, you are no better and possibly worse than the criminals that you purport to protect us from. All you are missing are the black hoods and jackboots.
Steven Johnson
Dear Editor,
Amidst reports of accomplishments by the government of St. Maarten as far as the Trust Fund is concerned, the debate continues as to the speed or lack thereof in the entire process of financing of the reconstruction on St. Maarten via the World Bank. We have had reports regarding the progress, the pace and the accomplishments. Just recently someone wrote an article and compared the World Bank structure on St. Maarten for the reconstruction as “Met een kanon op een mug schieten.” This could be freely translated into “cracking nuts with a sledge hammer.”
These reports include the progress report by the World Bank itself and a scathing report by the General Audit Chamber of the Netherlands.
Just recently again there was some uproar regarding a statement by the Dutch State Secretary about completion of the repairs to homes and roofs on St. Maarten. It was commented that the State Secretary grossly exaggerated the amount to which he referred. The amount to which he referred was that most homes have been repaired. Several persons subsequently contradicted that statement of the State Secretary.
There is still a lot of discussion regarding the entire functioning of the financing structure as chosen by the Dutch Government for their reconstruction aid to St. Maarten. The agreement between the Dutch government and the World Bank for this purpose is regulated and agreed to in a so-called administrative agreement. With respect to St. Maarten, the World Bank and St. Maarten would sign off the different grant agreements when these approvals have been arrived at.
As an annex to the administrative agreement between the World Bank and the government of the Netherlands, there is also a document called Guiding Principles of the Government of the Netherlands regarding the execution of the trust fund for the recovery of St. Maarten. Several matters are set out in this particular document, but which should not supersede the administrative agreement. Nevertheless, in this guiding document, the Dutch government has marked three policy objectives and they state that it is highly desirable that these three policy objectives are addressed in the steering committee when considering financing through the trust fund.
These three policy objectives by the Dutch government are a) achieving sustainable waste processing and water purification in collaboration with France; b) guaranteeing the accessibility of St. Martin with a view to supporting the economy, and thirdly and interestingly is the policy objective for the Dutch government in the reconstruction, good governance! This might explain some of the discussions that are taking place with respect to the financing for individual projects.
Noteworthy also are some other principles in this document of the Dutch government such as: Value for money and it is mentioned thereby “local labor will be used to the greatest possible extent and within the framework of the procurement regulations of the bank; attention will be given to opportunities for local companies to take part in the implementation.”
I highlight this area again because given the aforementioned and the criticism and contradictions regarding the execution of the Trust Fund, I think it behoves the three parties involved in the steering committee as three equal partners (the Netherlands, the World Bank and St. Maarten) to take a moment and evaluate the process up until now and try to get a better understanding of where exactly the bottlenecks in the implementation are and come up with ways to improve these.
It helps no one to only be pointing fingers and giving personal opinions as to where possibly the bottlenecks could be and who is responsible for the tardiness in some of these projects and grants, etc. St. Maarten needs to emphasize the capacity-building element in this programme as well as getting the maximum of the programme back into our local economy, despite the rigid World Bank procedures.
Sarah Wescot-Williams
Chairperson of Parliament
Dear Editor,
Really and truly? Opposition, why another no-confidence motion against another minister again?
Why? So, they put you all? St. Maarten opposition sit about 98 per cent on the opposition benches since they exist.
We just had falling of many governments, both parliamentarians and ministers made wonders with articles 33 and 59.
And we just had a very bad hurricane in (2017).
We are making progress bringing the Island of St. Maarten back on track. With great confidence St. Maarten has its first stable government since 10/10/10, We rather you all work together than hearing about a motion of no confidence. We the people would rather have the opposition bring motions on the table such as:
* increase the minimum wage .
* adjust house rent on the Island; rents too high.
* price control.
* increase pension.
* more roads needed.
* eliminate the six-month contracts.
* let buses run on the east side of the Island.
* let GEBE bring the water meters nearer to the homes; the meters are too far.
* district representatives.
* more public toilets are needed 24/7
These are the motions the entire public are expecting from the opposition to focus on for a brighter future for poor men.
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
Our island is going through perhaps one of the most trying times of its history. People have taken advantage of the incredible devastation of Hurricanes Irma and Maria to impose their will on us; to divide and conquer, when we were at our lowest.
It is sad, very sad, that we now turn on each other, rather than come together. It’s tit for tat. We take everything very personally and want to hit back at our very own, but all we’re doing is playing into the hands of other people.
I am breaking my silence on the developments on the island, and the protracted investigation into my husband, MP Theo Heyliger’s alleged attempt at bribery and I call for the people of St. Maarten to unite in these trying times. I admit that I have remained silent for too long, just like so many other St. Maarteners. But it wasn’t out of fear; it was more because, being Theo Heyliger’s wife, it seemed the prudent thing to do. But let me make this very clear: I’m not asking anyone to fight for my husband. That’s my fight and I got that. All I’m saying is that we need to open our eyes and see what’s happening before it’s too late.
Besides, there is a danger in remaining silent; and that is, what do I tell my children when they ask, “Mommy, what did you do when all of this was happening?” I can’t reply by saying: “I did nothing; I remained silent.” Silence, they say, means consent. In fact, it could mean complicity. We have to all stand up together for our island. It is incredible that today, we seem to love those who have historically oppressed us over even our own family! And while we fight each other – tooth and nail – others are taking over the island in broad daylight.
Honestly, this is not about one individual; it is not about one politician. It is not about my husband. I think if we continue to look at it like that, we will remain divided and that will be the end of us. Believe me, the way I see it, it is St. Maarten in trouble. That’s why we need to unite. We need to come together, now! It’s about St. Martin. It’s about our island. It’s about our children and their children’s future.
If we continue to focus on what this or that one did or did not do; what he said or she said about me… if we continue to think that it will never happen to us, then we would have learnt nothing from history.
This is bigger than any one of us. That is why I am calling on all of us, to set aside our differences – even if for a little while – and come together to stand up for our island.
In the end, when we look back, we will realize that the real disaster that struck us was not Hurricane Irma; it was not Maria; the real disaster that struck us was our lack of unity. That is why if we want to save our island and move forward, we must unite, now.
Grisha Heyliger-Martens
