The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government’s environmental adviser recommended that Resorts World Bimini post a performance bond to cover any beach enhancement costs resulting from its cruise ship terminal/jetty as far back as summer 2013, documents lodged with the Supreme Court reveal.

It is unclear whether the Christie administration has followed through on the Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology (BEST) Commission’s recommendation, which it said should be attached to ‘conditional approval’ for the project.

The July 29, 2013, memorandum by BEST Commission director Philip Weech has been seized upon by Resorts World’s opponents, the Bimini Blue Coalition, to support its allegation that government agencies “fettered and abdicated” their decision-making authority over the cruise terminal permits.

In particular, the Coalition is alleging that the BEST memorandum, sent to the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Housing and the Environment, shows that the Heads of Agreement signed between the Government and Resorts World was interpreted by the former’s agencies as mandating them to provide the necessary permits because the project was ‘already approved’.

“Mindful that the referenced project was reported to the BEST Commission in our meeting with the developer [Resorts World] has having been ‘granted approval’ by the Bahamas government,” was the opening salvo in Mr Weech’s memorandum, as he reported that BEST and its external advisers had read the documents supporting the project.

The Coalition’s attorneys, Callenders & Co, in an affidavit said the document showed “all regulatory agencies of the Government have been put on notice by virtue of the Heads of Agreement”.

“It is Bimini Blue Coalition’s position that the exercise of the legitimate discretion by any of the holders of office within any of the statutory regulatory agencies (including the director of physical planning) had been fettered by the Heads of Agreement, granting effectively an omnibus approval, thus depriving the director of physical planning (and others) of exercising independent decision-making under relevant statutes,” the Coalition’s attorneys alleged.

They further claimed that there was “no evidence” that the director of physical planning had considered all the factors surrounding the Resorts World dredging permit issued on May 22, “other than simply adopting the approvals” given by the Prime Minister via letters from the Department of Lands and Surveys.

The BEST memorandum “strongly recommended” that approvals be sought from the director of physical planning and all other relevant government agencies prior to the cruise terminal project starting, although it made not specific reference to a dredging permit.

And the Coalition is also targeting a section in the same document where Mr Weech writes in reference to the development: “No public consultations have been undertaken, and the Commission was advised by letter from the Bahamas Investment Authority (BIA) that the Office of the Prime Minister will advise on public consultations.”

The Coalition is alleging, though, that the Prime Minister’s Office has no authority under the Planning and Subdivisions Act, Building Regulations Act and Conservation of the Physical Landscape of the Bahamas Act to determine which projects required public consultation.

And BEST “strongly recommended” that consultations on the Resorts World development be undertaken.

The Weech memorandum made clear that BEST had significant concerns over the Resorts World project, and its impact on Bimini, more than a year ago, when the dredging was projected then to involve 220,000 cubic yards - around one-quarter of the current amount.

It recommended that “an environmental bond or other financial instrument” should be lodged by the development to finance beach replenishment and coral reef relocation monitoring, as a result of its cruise terminal.

BEST, though, has no statutory standing in law, and is thus merely an advisory body. Its recommendations thus have no teeth unless acted upon by the Government.

While urging revisions to the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan, BEST also called for the developers to hire an environmental manager.

“The proposed works and methodologies are expected to have significant and, if not actively managed, irreparable impacts to the surrounding sensitive receptors, coral reefs and existing dive sites located on the west side of north Bimini,” Mr Weech warned.

And both he and BEST said proposals to “manage, minimise and reuse” waste from the Resorts World expansion, or properly treat it, “fell short” of what was required.

“It is increasingly more apparent that the extent of environmental impacts, in particular Bimini’s already-strained solid and liquid waste management capacity, will be further exacerbated by the project as an additional 600,000 visitors to Bimini is envisaged,” Mr Weech wrote.