The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

FOLLOWING the approval of Royal Caribbean International’s $110m beach club project on Paradise Island, a local activist has questioned the environmental impacts the development will have.

Last week, the Davis administration revealed the approval of RCI’s Paradise Beach Club, despite previous objections to the project.

In a statement addressed to the prime minister, Cabinet ministers, and “aspiring” politicians yesterday, Save the Bays chairman Joseph Darville reflected on the fond memories of his youth which he experienced on the western end of Paradise Island, as it had a large population of wild hogfish, hence the name “Hog Island”.

 However, Mr Darville questioned the intentions of the project, referring to “Hog Island” as a development solely situated around “big profits” and “cheaply won-votes”.

 “Back then it was called Hog Island, apparently because of the large population of wild hogs that lived there,” he said.

“Today, with the announcement that the government has approved a development to bring thousands of tourists a day to the pristine beach overlooked by that noble lighthouse, it is once again becoming ‘hog island’, as international business eyes big profits and local politicians rub their hands at the prospect of cheaply-won votes.”

 He also questioned the environmental effects of the project, asking if the government considered the negative impact before approving the $110m project.

   “What will be the effect on that iconic coastline of the masses of garbage and human waste inevitably produced as a result of this development? What will be the effect on the once abundant reef that I knew so well in my youth, which is already struggling because of human impact?

“Will the developer’s plan be effective in mitigating these dangers? The government cannot possibly know the answer, because it went ahead and announced the approval, despite the fact that the environmental impact evaluation is yet to be completed.”

 He continued: “Perhaps worst of all, what does it mean for our sense of identity as a nation, that this once powerful symbol of our history and traditions, our seafaring roots and deep connection with nature, will be made off limits to Bahamians, hogged up by commercial and political interests and remade into a fabricated spectacle for the amusement of hordes of cruise day-visitors?”

 Mr Darville, narrowed in on the country’s sense of identity as a result of the development, saying that the freedom and birthright of Bahamians is being “clawed away” to the highest and in some instances lowest foreign bidder, to aid successive governments’ short term political interest and personal profit rather than the public’s best interest.

 He highlighted the various “incomparable national treasures” on different islands of The Bahamas, which have fallen prey to this trend, saying that others appear to be heading in the same direction.

 However, he blamed both the government and Bahamians for allowing this to occur.

 “The shortsightedness of our various governments is largely to blame for this,” he said yesterday.

 “There is no reason to chide international developers or wealthy second-home owners – our interests were never their responsibility. However, the finger must also be pointed at we, the people of The Bahamas. It is on our watch that our birthright has been auctioned in a decades-long fire sale, right from  under our noses.”

 He continued: “I am not saying that tourism projects are bad; indeed, they are a crucial tool of national development. But all development is not good development, there must be a balance, and some things must absolutely be sacred.

 “If not, what will be sold off is not just parcels of land, but our very identity as a people and most importantly, the natural heritage that we are tasked with holding in trust for the benefit of future generations.”

Last week, Atlantis’ top executive warned that approval of the project is “premature” and urged Bahamians to call on the government to “put the brakes on”.

Audrey Oswell said there are “too many red flags” and unanswered questions relating to the cruise line’s planned Royal Beach Club destination.

 She said these concerns focused largely on its potential environmental and economic impact, adding that Atlantis had raised some 50 questions relating to the former issue when the project was first unveiled for public consultation by the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) but had not received a single answer.