The proposed new airport project has given flight to a lot of discussion — to put it, er, mildly, Mr Editor — and is likely to continue to do so for some time to come. It’s not surprising either, when you consider what’s at stake and how the development is going to be financed. But here’s something else to consider and to add to the discussion.

Now, as you know, personalities do not often feature in this column but this week I make an exception to give credit where credit is due. It goes to Raymond Russell, a reader of the column and senior, who is a community activist (you may know him, yes?) who also happens to be as persistent as he is relentless when it comes to issues that are dear to his heart and to Bermuda.

He has drawn to my attention — and that of others, I expect — to the 2001 UK Environment Charter which he believes should come into play on plans for the proposed new airport, if it hasn’t already. Here’s why: the Charter was co-signed by then Premier Dame Jennifer Smith and Valerie Amos on behalf of the UK Government back in September 2001. It includes the following as Guiding Principles — and I quote — “for the UK Government, the Government of Bermuda and for the people of Bermuda”:

• To use national resources wisely, being fair to present and future generations;

• To seek expert advice and consult openly with interested parties on decisions affecting the environment;

• To aim for solutions which benefit both the environment and development;

• To contribute towards the protection and improvement of the global environment;

• To encourage activities and technologies that benefits the environment.

Fair enough, yes, and reasonable: but in language that is so widely cast that just how these principles will be interpreted and applied is anyone’s guess. It will likely depend upon individual cases and whether the two sides can reach agreement on whether this or that does or does not qualify.

But hang on. Aside from the general guiding principles, there were “commitments” made by both sides and set out in an attachment to the Charter. This is what piqued Mr Russell’s interest — and mine I have to admit. These are some of the commitments to which the UK agreed:

• Help build capacity to support and implement integrated environmental management which is consistent with Bermuda’s own plans for sustainable development.

• Help Bermuda ensure it has the legislation, institutional capacity and mechanisms it needs to meet international obligations.

• Promote better co-operation and the sharing of experience and expertise between Bermuda, other Overseas Territories and small island states and communities which face similar environmental problems.

• Use UK regional and local expertise to give advice and improve knowledge of technical and scientific issues. This includes regular consultation with interested non-governmental organisations and networks.

• Use the existing Environment Fund for the overseas territories, and promote access to other sources of public funding, for projects of lasting benefit to Bermuda’s environment.

Interesting, yes? Interesting enough you might think, that, with a little work, both creative and hard, there is scope here for more assistance than just the Deloitte study and report which, thankfully, and gratefully, did highlight glaring gaps and deficiencies in the project planning, about which even the average person quite rightly has concerns, putting aside for now any silly accusation that those who question and disagree are part of any combined opposition.

There remains plenty of scope for more work and for closer, more rigorous examination.

But a lot of course turns on how the Environment Charter is viewed as to whether it can be of any assistance. You may recall that this Charter was the subject of prior controversial scrutiny. It was the subject of a special report of the Ombudsman (then post-holder Arlene Brock) and her investigation into a Special Development Order for Tucker’s Point. At issue then was one of the commitments of the Government of Bermuda under the Charter:

• Commit to open and consultative decision-making on developments and plans which may affect the environment; ensure that environmental impact assessments include consultation with stakeholders.

It was also reported then that both Governments took the view that the Charter does not constitute law and moreover that the UK Government considered the Charter only to be “aspirational”.

But Ombudsman Brock disagreed and cited in her report legal precedent for the argument that mandatory language and structure like that of Charter constitutes a legally binding commitment, and further, in her view and in her words, “the Government of Bermuda can be legally held by the courts to perform actions that it promised to do”.

So what’s sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose? A big maybe, maybe, because I understand — from my sources — that the UK Government continues to regard the Charter only as “aspirational”. Worth only the paper it is written on unless challenged? A real pity that, Mr Editor, especially at a time when we (read our Government) could use a little outside help and assistance.