Environmentalists have voiced concerns after MPs backed amendments to a law aimed at protecting the Island’s wildlife.

The changes will allow the destruction of habitats of protected species — but only if alternative homes or captive breeding can be used to keep up the numbers.

Protected species include skinks, the longtail bird and a variety of turtles.

Health and Environment Minister Jeanne Atherden outlined the Protected Species Amendment Act 2014 in the House of Assembly yesterday.

Changes include allowing the Minister to issue permits to “develop or maintain land” which would otherwise be protected by the Act.

Stuart Hayward, of the Bermuda Environmental and Sustainability Taskforce (BEST), said: “Of course, we here at BEST were concerned about proposed amendments to the Protected Species Act, especially as the explanatory memorandum highlighted the expansion of the Minister’s discretion to permit ‘destruction of protected species’ and ‘destruction of critical habitats’.

“The core issue goes beyond this legislation. Bermuda is an almost totally urbanised Island and, as a result, just about every endemic or native species is endangered or threatened with extinction.”

Mr Hayward said BEST and other environmentalists had discussed their concerns with a senior civil servant “who answered most of our questions satisfactorily”.

He admitted there would “always be exceptions where the sacrifice of an individual or habitat of an endangered species can be justified” and that BEST was assured the amendment to the Act was to “allow for those exceptions, providing that the overriding purpose of the Act is not violated”.

Mr Hayward added: “While Bermuda is often given credit for having the foresight to enact laws protecting endangered species, such laws are seldom passed before the resources they were designed to protect were already seriously depleted.

“Despite the various legislative attempts in the last century, it still became necessary in 2003 to pass a local Protected Species Act, in which all the most threatened species and their habitats were given total protection with provision for maximum fines of $10,000 for anyone deliberately causing their destruction.

“Instead of having the desired effect, aspects of the Act raised fears it would be invoked to prevent any development. If, for instance, a stand of cedars and palmettos was growing on a development lot, or if a cedar had self-seeded adjacent to a house and was causing cracks in the foundation or growing roots into a tank, it was feared any further development on that site would be blocked.

“As a result, people were actually declining to plant any endangered species on their property to avoid such restrictions in the future. Some actually cut trees down in secret.

“This is a prime example of where the letter of the law comes into conflict with the spirit of the law. It points out why laws can never replace values or the exercise of common sense.

“We are persuaded now that the amendment to the Act is intended to allow for those exceptions.”

But Mr Hayward said BEST remained concerned that amendments that make provision for such exceptions put the onus of making such decisions solely with the Environment Ministry.

He said: “Past experience has taught us that discretionary powers can be abused. We will need to be vigilant to keep the spirit of the law uppermost.

“We will also need to place more emphasis on values and education alongside enforcement. We have to accept that laws cannot by themselves replace values, and use to our advantage the principle that values can be instilled through education.

“Common sense dictates that we should make every effort to preserve and protect species such as our cedar trees, but this should not prevent us from removing occasional individual trees that threaten a house foundation or water tank.

“It should not even prevent us from harvesting them for their valuable timber, provided we plant replacements to make such harvesting sustainable.

“We are reasonably confident that the amendments made today to the Protected Species Act are a step in the right direction.”

While detailing the amendments, Minister Atherden told the House that “to ensure the continued recovery of a protected species, there needs to be the ability to replace a habitat”.

She added similar arrangements were used in other countries where development had taken place.

“These new powers will allow land owners to better manage their properties while ensuring no Island-wide loss of species,” she said.

The Minister must “consider whether a protected species or critical habitat may be negatively impacted and, if so, he shall determine whether to impose any mitigation action”.

Actions could include relocation, transplantation, restoration or replacement — or even the destruction of protected species or critical habitats.

The amendments would also allow the Minister to order the destruction of critical habitats if it is necessary to protect public safety or to prevent the destruction of a building or structure after considering possible mitigating action.

Ms Atherden said the changes created a “more flexible regime”.

Glenn Blakeney, Shadow Minister for the Environment, said: “This piece of legislation is pragmatic, practical and common sense.”