The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Almost two-thirds of Biminites surveyed for the Resorts World/Genting ferry terminal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) said they did not want an increase in the island’s existing 52,000 annual visitor numbers.

This, and other startling findings that call into question the whole rationale for the Bimini Bay Resort’s proposed expansion, are contained in the EIA that has finally been made public - seemingly in response to recent pressure on the Government.

Apart from suggesting that most Biminites do not want an 11-fold increase in total visitor numbers to their island, the EIA also revealed:

• The proposed ferry terminal and jetty, which will accommodate the daily arrival of Resorts World’s cruise ship from Miami, is “incompatible with the existing and future land uses of the remainder of North Bimini”.

• And, in the same breath, the EIA notes that the estimated 570,000 annual visitors that will be attracted to Bimini are “greater than appropriate” for the island’s size, ecology and socio-economy.

• Plans to have passengers sign up for excursions and activities while on board the cruise ship from Miami “may take away from the opportunities for Biminites” to benefit from the Resorts World project, the EIA admits.

• And the EIA also warns that living costs on Bimini may increase from the influx of tourists and imported labour (construction and full-time) from other Bahamian islands.

The Resorts World/Genting EIA said that just 50 Biminites, or 3 per cent, of the island’s 1,700-plus population were interviewed for the EIA, implying that the relatively small sample size had to be considered when analysing the results.

But the document, which was submitted to the Government, conceded that the questions were asked on the basis that visitor numbers would increase by 360,000 per year, not the new 570,000 total.

The increase stemmed from Resorts World’s decision to increase the number of weekend sailings from Miami, but the survey findings will again raise questions as to whether the Government and developer are imposing a project on the island that is not wanted by many Biminites.

“Residents were asked about their preference for future tourism development,” the EIA said. “When asked whether Bimini should try to decrease or increase the volume of tourism, 64 per cent of the sample indicated tourist numbers should remain ‘about the same’, 28 per cent indicated tourist numbers should increase, and 8 per cent indicated tourist numbers should increase.”

This is counter-balanced by a previous 300-strong petition by Biminites saying they had no objection to Bimini Bay, but the survey results are hardly a ringing endorsement of the proposed visitor expansion.

And, while in keeping with Bimini Bay’s size and development, the EIA conceded that the extra 570,000 persons per year, coupled with the cruise ship jetty and terminal, were “incompatible with the existing and future land uses of the remainder of North Bimini”.

And, confirming what many observers have long known, the EIA added: “The number of visitors intended for Bimini is greater than that appropriate for the ecological and socioeconomic carrying capacity of Bimini outside Bimini Bay at present.

“Careful consideration must be given to the impact on the remainder of Bimini, given the proposed substantial influx of people to the island and the resulting demand on land use as a result of the increased demand from the tourists, as well as the resulting demands from the increased labour to support the increased number of visitors. This may also increase the cost of living on the island.”

And the document, prepared by Bahamas-based Blue Engineering, with assistance from Coastal Systems International and Ocean Consulting, warned: “The negative impacts ecologically will be extremely high, with the high pressure that will be exerted into the local natural resources. As a result, there will be loss of natural resources.

“As such it will be important to put legislation and infrastructure in place to limit the extent of loss. This should include but not be limited to facilities at known areas of natural historical interest in order to limit loss; introduction of comprehensive natural resource legislation and management programmes, especially in forestry and wildlife; and a comprehensive programme for the control of exotic plants and animals. Consideration should also be given to the provision of a reserve.”

Housing, both for the construction workers and estimated 600 full-time employees at Bimini Bay when expansion is completed, was identified as a major issue by the EIA.

Suggesting that 600 housing units would be needed to accommodate Resorts World’s permanent employees, the EIA said: “The developer is in on-going discussions with the Office of the Prime Minister to identify land and to assist in development of new housing units.

“Current options off-site for the housing of permanent employees are available, but also expensive. Affordable options need to be explored.

“There will be an increased demand on housing as an indirect effect of the project. Housing is already a concern for the island and the Government has been seeking to provide additional low-cost housing in South Bimini.”

The EIA said the increased demands placed on Bimini’s infrastructure and transportation systems by the influx of tourists would be “somewhat controlled” by getting them to sign up to activities while en route from Miami, with these included in the cost.

The downside of doing this, as the EIA acknowledges, is that it will automatically direct visitors to Bimini Bay and likely keep them on-property for the duration of their three-five hour stay.

As a result, it concedes that the off-property benefits for Biminite and Bahamian entrepreneurs outside Bimini Bay will be minimised.

“Whilst this may take away from the opportunities for Biminites to benefit from the visitors, it is understood that many of the visitors will want to experience Bimini itself and are likely to go into the towns for homemade Bimini breads, conch salad and the nightlife,” the EIA says optimistically.

“It will be important to put systems in place to ensure that the towns benefit as much as possible from the tourism and that the organised activities provide Biminites with appropriate benefits.”

The EIA highlighted the dilemma facing the Government and many Family Islands, namely how to balance tourism and foreign direct investment (FDI) projects with the ability of local communities to absorb them.

Noting that the Resorts World/Genting project “could potentially significantly increase tourism to Bimini, and strengthen an industry that has been vital to economic expansion in the Bahamas, the EIA added: “The increased tourism could also potentially take away from what is the attraction to many of the current visitors, many of whom are return visitors.”

The document added: “Bimini is likely to be passively ruled by tourism. Therefore it needs community development, which is a process and a capacity to make decisions that consider the long-term economy, ecology and equity of all communities.

“Community development is one of the core elements of sustainable development.”