Ombudsman Arlene Brock has again called on Government to honour its commitments to the UK Environmental Charter, reiterating that the charter is legally binding.Last year the Ombudsman said in a report that the then Government had acted unlawfully by approving a special development order (SDO) for Tucker’s Point without first carrying out an environmental impact analysis (EIA).Opposition leader Marc Bean, then the Minister of Environment, Planning and Infrastructure Strategy, responded at the time that the charter does not constitute law, describing it as “aspirational”.On Friday Mrs Brock tabled a third report on the subject in the House of Assembly titled “Diligent Development — Getting it Right”.In it she updated the findings of her February 2012 systemic report on the data-gathering and analysis by civil servants in the lead up to Parliamentary approval of the Tuckers’ Point SDO.Ms Brock said: “Last year, when I tabled ‘Today’s Choices — Tomorrow’s Costs’, I made a finding that the civil service had erred at law by not recognising that Bermuda’s signature on the 2001 UK Environment Charter is a legal commitment. The then Minister rather emphatically responded that I was wrong.“Since then I have received additional information that further proves that I was absolutely correct.”She stated that she has spoken to one of the drafters of the charter, who stated the commitments were not merely aspirational.“There are certain commitments that everyone recognised would need more funding and planning to implement,” she said. “There were others — such as the requirement for EIAs before approval of development proposals — that could be implemented right away without the need for local legislation or Government expenditure.”She described acting without the due process of a proper EIA as “the legal equivalent of walking into barbed wire in the dark”.“Except here, the damage, once done, cannot be undone — we just cannot put the lava back in without being burned,” she added.Ms Brock also said she has learned of a court decision which backed her claim that the commitments of the charter are legal obligations.In the case in the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, the court reviewed the adequacy of EIAs based on commitments withing the charter for the proposed construction of a dolphinarium and shopping complex.“The Court found that the charter (singly or taken together with the government’s environmental strategy and action plan) established a policy and therefore created a legitimate expectation that the public would be consulted,” she wrote.Although this case is not a Privy Council decision that would be binding on Bermuda, Ms Brock states “as this is the only case that determined the legal status of the Charter, it is likely to be highly persuasive for Bermuda’s Supreme Court. It ought to be highly persuasive for our Government too.“It is a mystery to me why Bermuda would not want to honour our commitments to protect our fragile environment — not just for today but for our grandchildren. Even the International Court of Justice has said that EIAs may be considered a requirement under general international law. What better guidance are we waiting for?“It is time for Bermuda to join the 21st Century, and keep our promises. EIAs — inclusive of adequate public consultation — must be done prior to approval of major developments and all development proposals that may cause significant adverse impact.”Mr Bean yesterday declined to respond to Ms Brock’s findings when contacted by this newspaper. However, he did say: “I will be interested to see the work going forward in that office with view to the current Government.”