Is the THA’s decision to put toilets or rather, make a toilet or two available on No Man’s Land, based on sympathy? Or is it connected to a bigger more solid business model?
We would argue its a bad idea. Given that it would be impractical to build a brick and mortar outhouse - even if connected to a plastic septic. The only other option would be to improvise the equivalent of a holding system. The cost though, to mobilise such a system would mean public funds allocated to storage then towage, then transfer and over all, general management of filth.
Since money from the park does not really flow to the public purse, it effectively means a subsidy for a few recalcitrant hustlers is what is on the table. We defend the use of the term ‘hustler’ using the rubric of business, taxes and conformance to regulation.
However. Our true concern is deployment of toilets on the scenic sandbank means more parties, more noise, more lights more of everything in fact - Except what we really need in the lagoon and its environs.
Remember the Marine Park? Comprised of the Bon Accord wetland, the laggon and Buccoo Reef It was set aside as an area of extreme importance for the continuance of the reef ecosystem. Kill the lagoon, kill the reef. Where would the parties go next? It would be so easy to pick up the tail end of the THA’s decision to install ‘facilities’ for No Man’s Land but that takes away from the true function of their stewardship.
Environment Tobago feels the current THA’s direction (in this regard), shows more sympathy for the vote than for the outlook of the marine park. But that to be fair is conjecture. Let’s take the tine to remind ourselves of a few facts, realities if you will.
The nature within the lagoon ecosystem is complex, disturb any aspect and others adapt to the interruption. Garbage disposal as a result of the now daily food and drink trade on the sandbank has encouraged strays - itinerant animal disposal. Which has led to cats and dogs and rats depending on the Gibson dump for sustenance.
The animals also drag or lift or pull their booty into the surrounding mangrove which further peturbs the natural behaviour (and aesthetic) of that environment. Not that Gibson Jetty is a good idea in any case - the concrete slab posing as ‘access’ has disturbed the tidal wash among the mangrove roots there. In short the mangrove buffer along the lagoon in that area is dead - it just doesn’t know it yet.
We’ll stop here with the physical damage story and cut to the chase. If we allow the integrity of the lagoon and its surrounds to dissipate, to facilitate a few party people posing as parties interested in park life - we effectively sideline the core customer, that is the visitor who want to experience the park. Not everyone wants to make love to soca in the wild.
We include the following diagram depicting the interlocked nature of things environmental social and governance as a ‘word’ to the wise.
Figure 1: What we want to consider