The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas National Trust’s (BNT) president has questioned whether multi-million dollar investment projects will now receive construction permits prior to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) consultation and approval, asking: “Is this the modus operandi going forward?”

Neil McKinney told Tribune Business that both the Government and Malaysian conglomerate, Genting, had “shot themselves in the foot” through the secrecy with which they shrouded the EIA and associated approvals for the latter’s $10-$15 million Bimini cruise ship terminal investment.

Arguing that this had made it impossible for Bahamians, and especially Biminites, to support the project, Mr McKinney said the whole EIA process had been tailored “strictly for the developer’s” benefit.

He disclosed to Tribune Business that the BNT was recommending that Genting, and its Resorts World brand, abandon plans to create an artificial 4.5 acre island off Bimini to receive its cruise ship and disembarking tourists.

Believing the island is being created only to accommodate the 220,000 cubic yards of fill that will be generated by the planned dredging, the Trust is also requesting that the developers alter the route for the jetty that will connect the island to the Bimini mainland.

Rather than take it out perpendicular to Bimini’s existing coastline, Mr McKinney said the BNT was suggesting that it take a northwards direction from the shore, and then turn left out to where it would meet the incoming cruise ship from Miami.

By doing this, Mr McKinney said the jetty would circumvent key dive sites and other important underwater ecology, mitigating both the environmental and tourism industry impact.

But the key question, he acknowledged, was whether either theGovernment or developer would be receptive to making changes at this late stage, given that construction permits for the island terminaland jetty have already been issued.

The October 2013 dates attached to both the EIA and associated Environmental Management Plan (EMP) indicate that the Government was preparing to approve the Resorts World plans prior to these being examined and signed-off on.

The dates also suggest that Resorts World was mobilizing workers, materials and equipment prior to both the EIA and EMP being completed.

Acknowledging this, Mr McKinney pointed out that the size of the documents submitted by Resorts World’s consultants – the EIA alone is more than 190 pages – made it impossible to conduct a full review, and provide comprehensive recommendations, in the tight timeline given by the imminent construction.

Given the almost-total secrecy surrounding the Bimini cruise terminal EIA, and minimal public consultation, Mr McKinney questioned how this stood up against the precedent established via the Baker’s Bay and BEC Wilson City power plant Judicial Review cases.

The courts had ruled that local people affected by major investments/resort projects had a right to be consulted prior to construction, and the BNT president said: “If that precedent were tohold, where do we go from this?”

And he also pointed to another procedural weakness – the fact that the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology (BEST) Commission cannot engage stakeholder groups and the public over EIAs without getting the Government’s permission first.

“We normally talk to BEST,” Mr McKinney revealed, “but BEST is not allowed to talk to us. It can’t come to us. It has to be authorized by the Government.” This likely stems from the fact BEST has no statutory or regulatory authority; it can only advise the Government and Prime Minister on environmental issues.

“First off, our concern is that this whole process has taken place without our being involved,” Mr McKinney told Tribune Business. “Typically, we like to get documents, review them, talk to people in government and BEST and, of course, we got this last week.

“We haven’t had any input into this. Government may say: ‘We hear what you’re saying, but are still doing this’. We haven’t had the opportunity, and that’s surely part of the function of the BNT – to offer up alternatives which may or may not be acceptable.”

Mr McKinney added that the Government’s desire to create jobs appeared be driving the rapid haste with which it approved the Resorts World project.

Noting that the official unemployment rate had risen a further 2.2 percentage points to 16.2 per cent last week, he said: “From the Government’s point of view, when unemployment has gone even higher and you’ve promised 10,000 jobs, that’s what’s driving this.

“We understand what the Government’s got to do, but we’d like an opportunity to sit down with them and say if you were to do this differently then you could avoid a lot of the dive sites.

“People book tickets to fly to Bimini, go in the water for a dive, and have to get out of the way when the ship is going by? Bahamians get a lot of employment from those activities.”

The EIA acknowledges that 14 known dive spots, or almost 70 per cent of Bimini’s favourite locations, are situated within 1.5 miles of the proposed cruise ship terminal and jetty. The closest, it adds, are 700 feet and 1,500 feet, respectively, from the construction zone.

The sites include the Atlantis Road and Three Sisters Rocks, and the EIA concedes: “Diving and snorkeling in Bimini is very popular, and as such a major reason for many tourists to visit Bimini…. This area is of high importance to the diving industry.”

“This so far has been done strictly from the developer’s point of view,” Mr McKinney told Tribune Business. “We realize this is at a late stage. It’s unfortunate. We’d like to work with the Government and developer, and say: ‘You’re doing this, but if you tweak this and turn it around, it can be done with much less of an impact.

“The Act calls for public consultation. That’s come late in the day. At this point the question is: ‘Is the developer, the Government, anybody: Are they open to any genuine suggestions as to how mitigation could occur, or have decisions been made and it’s too late to have any impact?”

Mr McKinney said there may have been less opposition to the Resorts World project had the developer and the Government been more transparent.

“People did not know what’s going on,” he added. “If they keep you in the dark, how can you be in favour of something if you don’t know what it is? They’ve shot themselves in the foot. They’d have been better to come out early, then mitigation, other ideas or possibilities could have been raised. There was never that opportunity.

“Is this going to be the modus operandi going forward? Unfortunately, everyone’s been very tight-lipped on this.”

Mr McKinney said that if Resorts World’s cruise ship was going to turn around back in every time it docked, sediment in the dredged area was likely to be disturbed. This, he added, was likely to impact the reef, while the prop wash would ensure this was carried some distance.

The BNT president also warned that the dredging was likely to leave a “scar” that would take much longer to heal. He also questioned why Customs and Immigration needed to be located on the artificial island, rather than on mainland Bimini.