GREAT BAY--Member of Parliament Darryl York placed the focus on clarity, structure and parliamentary understanding during the continuation of the Central Committee meeting on Tuesday on the Nature Policy Plan St. Maarten 2025-2030 with Minister of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure Patrice Gumbs.
MP York said that after the previous meeting, he left “conflicted and perplexed” about the essence of the document. He stressed that his concern was not opposition to the goals of the Nature Policy Plan, but rather how the document is presented, understood and eventually used.
According to York, he took time after the previous meeting to seek input from stakeholders, community members and environmental organizations. He said those discussions helped him gain a better understanding of the document and changed the way he approached the continuation of the debate.
Rather than presenting what he said could have been dozens of questions to the Minister, York said he chose to offer suggestions aimed at making the parliamentary handling of the document more useful.
York first suggested that, for technical committee meetings of this nature, Parliament should consider allowing professionals and subject-matter experts to help explain specific elements of documents that come before Members of Parliament.
He said committee meetings are intended to allow Parliament to go “down to the nitty gritty” and discuss the details of what is being presented. While acknowledging that Ministers are responsible for presenting documents to Parliament, York said there are instances where technical experts may be better positioned to explain the practical meaning, intent and impact of complex policy documents.
York said his own understanding of the Nature Policy Plan improved after speaking with stakeholders who were familiar with the content.
“There is a difference between understanding it and having command of it,” York said, noting that a person may understand a document but may not always be able to explain it in a way that is easily understood by others.
He suggested that future committee meetings involving specialized topics should include professionals who can assist Parliament in understanding the technical substance behind government documents.
York’s central concern focused on the title and classification of the document. He said that based on his review, the Nature Policy Plan does not function as a policy in the strict sense, but more as a plan, road map or strategic framework.
“In my humble estimation this is not a policy,” York said. “This document is basically, as it says, a nature plan or nature road map or nature strategic framework.”
York explained that his concern is not cosmetic. He warned that continuing to call the document a policy plan could create legal and administrative uncertainty, particularly if the document is later used in permitting decisions or to support the discretionary authority of a Minister.
He said legislation normally provides the legal framework and enforcement authority, while policy should provide detail, criteria, thresholds and mechanisms for implementation. In York’s view, the current document does not provide that level of specificity.
“This policy plan doesn’t have those specifics in it. It doesn’t have thresholds. It doesn’t have criteria,” York said.
York said the document contains themes, objectives and projects that he supports, but he believes Parliament should be clear about what it is being asked to approve. He said the document should be called by a name that reflects its actual function.
“If it’s the Nature Road Map, the Nature Strategic Plan, the Nature Plan, let’s call it that,” York said.
He added that his support for the substance of the document would be stronger if it is treated as a plan or road map rather than as a detailed policy instrument.
York also called on the Minister, if the document moves to a public meeting, to focus the presentation on the objectives of the plan and the projects attached to those objectives. He said this would help Members of Parliament and the public better understand what the plan is intended to achieve.
He pointed to examples such as mangrove conservation, legislation, invasive species management, protected area legislation and the drafting of national environmental instruments as areas where clearer explanation would help Parliament connect the objectives of the plan to real projects already underway.
According to York, the issue is not that the goals are wrong. His point was that the document should be made clearer, and Parliament should understand the projects tied to the objectives before giving support.
“If this plan is supposed to go on to Parliament support right now, if I ask Parliament what are the projects that are attached to these objectives, the majority of people can’t even answer that,” York said.
He said that was not meant as criticism of any Member of Parliament, but as an indication that the presentation should better connect the objectives to the actual work and programs being pursued.
Minister Gumbs: Policy Sets the National Direction
Responding to York, Minister Gumbs said it is important to distinguish between policy and plan. He explained that policy is generally broad and strategic, while plans are used to operationalize policy through more specific actions and implementation steps.
The Minister said the Nature Policy Plan should be understood within that context. He said policies establish objectives, commitments and the general direction government intends to follow, while more detailed elements such as projects, budget posts and implementation programs are usually reflected in annual or multi-annual plans linked to the budget cycle.
Gumbs said the document before Parliament sets out a broader direction for the country, particularly in relation to sustainable development and the protection of nature. He described the policy as a benchmark for the work the Ministry has been trying to advance, especially over the past two years.
According to the Minister, St. Maarten must continue moving toward a more sustainable approach to development. He said the Nature Policy Plan sets clear objectives at the national level and helps define the direction in which government wants to move.
Gumbs acknowledged York’s point that operationalization is important. He said the Ministry will consider the comments and suggestions raised, particularly as the policy is translated into ministry programs, budget posts and annual planning.
The Minister also indicated that a more detailed breakdown of implementation may belong in a lower-level document, rather than in the policy document itself. He said that once the discussion shifts to specific projects, budget lines and implementation programs, Parliament would be entering a different type of debate from the one normally attached to a high-level policy framework.
Gumbs thanked Members of Parliament for their comments, questions and suggestions and said the Ministry looks forward to further discussion when the matter moves to the public meeting.
York later clarified that he was not asking the Minister for budget line items and had deliberately avoided questions on funding because that would open a separate debate. He said his comments were focused on the structure, clarity and classification of the document.
York said that if the document is presented as policy, then Parliament should expect to see clear criteria, mechanisms and standards by which government actions under the policy will be assessed. He said if those elements are not in the document, then it should be treated as a plan.
He warned that vague language in a document labeled as policy could create room for uncertainty, especially if later used in relation to permits or development decisions.
York again emphasized that he supports the goals of the document and the direction it seeks to take, but said Parliament should “call it what it is.”
“If I view it as a nature policy plan, I would have 50 questions here for the Minister. If I view it as a nature plan, then basically I would tell the Minister, you have success and you have my full support,” York said.
MP Francisco Lacroes also weighed in, stating that while he understood the point raised by York, the issue of implementation must be connected to funding. Lacroes said the budget will have to reflect the goals in the plan, including increased enforcement capacity where needed.
He said government often produces plans and policies that remain on shelves because there is no money available to execute them. He indicated that during the budget process, he will be looking to see whether the necessary resources are provided to support implementation.
Minister Gumbs responded that Lacroes raised an important point, particularly in relation to enforcement. He noted that several persons were recently certified as BAVPOL officers, which he said strengthens enforcement mechanisms and increases capacity for the coming budget cycle.
The Minister said the points raised by both York and Lacroes will be taken into consideration as the matter moves forward.
At the end of the meeting, it was stated that an advice will be drafted and sent to the public meeting for further handling and notification.
York closed by reiterating that his suggestions were made in good faith. He said he looks forward to a fruitful discussion when the matter reaches the public meeting.
For coverage f the previous meeting on the Nature Policy Plan as presented by Minister Gumbs, go here:
Join Our Community Today
Subscribe to our mailing list to be the first to receive
breaking news, updates, and more.
