MP York: Current environmental issues were raised and addressed in his motion ignored by govt

GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Darryl York says many of the environmental and coastal protection issues now confronting St. Maarten were already raised in Parliament and addressed through a motion he tabled in October 2024, but Government has failed to act on the measures that Parliament unanimously approved.

Speaking during the meeting of Parliament on Tuesday, MP York said he did not want to get caught in political back-and-forth about who did or did not do what in terms of the situation in Simpson Bay (grape tree). Instead, he said the country must look at the facts, the solutions that were already presented, and the lack of follow-through that has allowed the same issues to return to the national agenda.

York said that from his first days in Parliament, he placed environmental protection and coastal management high on his list of priorities. One of his first initiatives as Chairman of the VROMI Committee, he said, was to bring the Nature Foundation to Parliament to discuss the needs and challenges in St. Maarten’s environmental sector.

His second major initiative, he explained, was the tabling of a motion titled Mullet Bay and Coastal Protection, which was passed unanimously by Parliament on October 29, 2024. According to York, that motion dealt directly with the same concerns now being raised by residents, environmental advocates and Members of Parliament, including beach access, destructive development, Mullet Bay protection, pond conservation and the need for enforceable coastal rules.

York contends that if Government, and specifically the responsible Minister, had executed the motion as Parliament instructed, many of the issues facing the country today would not have escalated into public controversy.

According to York, beach access would not now be a major point of concern, because the motion specifically called for a unified Beach Ordinance to better regulate construction adjacent to beaches. That ordinance, as outlined in the motion, was to include provisions restricting building heights and density near beaches, mandating environmental impact assessments for proposed development near beach zones, and ensuring that public access to beaches maintains a minimum width of three meters, coupled with an accessible walkway.

York said those measures were specific instructions adopted by Parliament and intended to create clear rules where confusion, uncertainty and public concern continue to exist.

The MP also pointed to Mullet Bay as one of the clearest examples of what could have been prevented. He said the motion urged Government, through the Ministry of VROMI, to initiate and implement zoning plans that would designate Mullet Bay, including its coastal lands, as protected zones. The motion further called for clear restrictions to prevent destructive development, in accordance with the Ramsar listing site number 2270.

York said that if those zoning measures had been implemented, Mullet Bay would no longer be treated as an attractive area for speculative or destructive development. Instead, it would have already been placed under a clearer protective framework.

The motion also reaffirmed a 2013 parliamentary resolution to formally secure Mullet Pond as a National Park. It called for explicit protections for its mangroves and marine life, along with enforcement measures to prevent activities that would compromise its ecological health.

York said this is why the current public concern over trees, coastal access, sensitive areas and development cannot be treated as a new issue. Parliament had already identified the danger, debated it, and approved steps to address it.

The motion urged the Council of Ministers to demonstrate a proactive stance on environmental protection and management, particularly with regard to coastal and ecologically sensitive areas, by taking visible and enforceable actions.

It also called for protection of St. Maarten’s remaining pond areas, namely Welgelegen Pond, better known as Little Bay Pond adjacent to Bel-Air Hotel, Red Pond at Gibbs Bay, Great Salt Pond and Fresh Pond. Government was urged to submit to Parliament within 30 days an action plan based on the conclusions and recommendations of the study “The Ponds of St. Maarten, Sustainable Development and Management” and any subsequent official report assessing the state of the country’s ponds.

The motion’s considerations cited the Constitution of St. Maarten, including the preamble stating that the people of St. Maarten are determined to care for the perpetual maintenance of nature and the environment. It also cited Article 22 of the Constitution, which mandates Government to maintain the country in a habitable state, improve the natural environment and ensure the welfare of animals.

The motion further referenced studies such as The Ponds of St. Maarten by Ecovision in 1996, the Carrying Capacity Study, the Tourism Masterplan and other reports that consistently highlighted the importance of preserving St. Maarten’s ponds because of their ecological and environmental value.

It also noted that Dutch St. Maarten historically had at least 19 ponds, as recorded on maps at the Cadaster’s office. By 1995, that number had decreased to 10, while today fewer than five remain undisturbed.

York said the motion was designed to address exactly the kind of structural weakness now being exposed: a lack of cohesive and enforceable policy to regulate construction near beaches, protect ecologically sensitive areas and preserve public access.

He said current beach policies under VROMI and TEATT still lack a unified, enforceable ordinance capable of properly regulating construction near beach zones. That gap, he said, is precisely what the 2024 motion attempted to close.

Despite the unanimous approval of the motion, York said follow-up has been lacking. He said he requested a meeting in late 2025 to receive an update on the motion, but that meeting has not yet been called. He also said he sent a letter to the Minister on the topic and never received an answer.

“Here we find ourselves today speaking about things that seemingly were unaddressed,” York said, stressing that several of the issues now being discussed were already captured in the motion.

The MP said there is often a public narrative that when ministries fail to act, Parliament is to blame. He said he wanted it placed clearly on the record that Parliament did act in this case, but that parliamentary motions still require execution by Government.

York said the situation is an example of how Parliament can pass a motion, even unanimously, but still depend on the responsible ministries and ministers to implement it. “When Parliament tries to do something, oftentimes you also depend on others,” York said.

He stressed that his remarks were not intended simply to point fingers, but to show that a practical pathway had already been provided. The issue, he said, is that the pathway was not taken.

York said the country must now stop treating these concerns as sudden or isolated incidents. The questions of beach access, Mullet Bay protection, pond conservation, tree removal, coastal development and environmental management were already raised in Parliament and addressed through a formal motion.

He said the challenge now is implementation. According to York, had the motion been executed, the country would have been in a stronger position today. Mullet Bay could have been protected through zoning, beach access could have been secured through a unified ordinance, ecologically sensitive areas could have been subject to enforceable safeguards, and Government would already have had an action plan for the remaining ponds.

York said St. Maarten cannot continue to wait until controversy erupts before acting on environmental protection. Parliament already gave Government the mandate, he said, and the public is now seeing the cost of inaction.

‍