The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Some 90 percent of visiting boaters were threatening to boycott the Exuma cays if the controversial outsourcing of all anchorages/moorings had proceeded, it was revealed yesterday.

Wally Moran, who writes for sailing publications and has produced videos for the Sailing Channel, told this newspaper an informal online poll he conducted at the weekend revealed that 90.2 percent of respondents - more than nine in every ten - said they would either abandon the Exumas or go elsewhere in The Bahamas if the moorings/anchorage plan took root.

Speaking with Tribune Business prior to the joint announcement by the Government and Bahamas Moorings that they have “mutually agreed” to terminate their lease deal, Mr Moran shared poll results that showed 29 percent of boaters would “not have returned to the Exumas”, while a further 61.2 percent would have “gone elsewhere in The Bahamas” if the moorings scheme had gone into effect.

Only 9.8 percent, less than one in ten, said they would have returned to the island chain regardless. “Boaters are very strongly against fees for mooring or anchoring in the Exumas, despite clearly being in favour of spending time in The Bahamas in other locations,” Mr Moran concluded of the snap poll’s findings. 

“Based on this poll, it can be assumed that mooring or anchoring fees are viewed very negatively by boaters and will strongly affect their decisions on where in The Bahamas to cruise. Although the question was not asked, it is safe to presume that if mooring and anchoring fees are implemented in the Abacos and other areas of The Bahamas, boating tourism will take a substantial hit.”

Mr Moran also shared online comments made by boaters responding to his poll, with some asserting “they can keep their mooring money pit” in reference to The Bahamas. One, stating that cruising in the Exumas has been “our top bucket list goal for many years”, said they were finally going to visit in 2025.

“I don’t want to let this kill that dream,” they said of the Bahamas Moorings proposal, “but it’s less money we will be spending on land which only hurts the locals.” Another added: “Unfortunately, some of The Bahamas have become a corporate money grab.... Sad to say it, but next season we’ll be ‘just passing through’ or perhaps I-65 and pass them by.”

In return for leasing a total 4,615 acres from the Government for 21 years, with effect from February 1, 2025, Bahamas Moorings had agreed to pay an annual rent equal to 3 percent of gross revenue collected from boaters plus 10 percent VAT. Bahamas Moorings, which said its fees were to be VAT inclusive, also issued social media messages saying boaters can use its moorings free of charge until its official launch.

This was to have taken place at the Palm Beach International Boat show from March 19-23, 2025. For mooring at its round buoys, Bahamas Moorings was proposing to charge fees ranging from $25 to $135 per day depending on vessel length, plus fees of between $170 and $250 per day for “super yachts” mooring at its taper buoys again depending on length.

Anchorage fees range from 55 cents per foot per day to $1.10 per foot per day, again depending on boat length. Bahamas Moorings Company argued its mooring/anchorage plan would have brought order to the present chaos on Bahamian waters by giving boats and yachts designated points where they can tie up, thus preventing damage to the seabed, coral reefs and other ecosystems from anchors dragging. 

Peter Maury, the Association of The Bahamas Marinas (ABM) president, yesterday told Tribune Business - just prior to the Government and Bahamas Moorings announcements that the deal was being cancelled - that the plans to install 250 moorings at 49 locations in the Exumas via an investment worth $2.5m were effectively “taking away our rights to use the seabed”.

This, he argued, would be especially problematic for residents of smaller communities on the Exuma Cays who would now have to pay for the privilege of mooring/anchoring their boats. “How do you take away their rights to use the seabed in front of their property?” Mr Maury asked. “Now they won’t even have the right to the seabed in front of their properties. I don’t understand it. Next they’ll take the beaches away from us.”

Confirming that he was aware of the negative fall-out among The Bahamas’ current and potential boating visitors, the ABM chief said this would only worsen the impact caused by yacht brokers and management companies diverting vessels away from this nation due to the increased fees/taxes and greater entry bureaucracy imposed in recent years.

Disclosing that communities and businesses in the Exuma Cays will be most impacted had the Bahamas Moorings deal gone through, Mr Maury added: “I’ve never seen this in 35 years. This is the first time in history. They [boaters] are going to boycott the Exumas.”

Besides raising questions over the Davis administration’s apparent lack of transparency and failure to consult Out Island communities, observers also challenged why a deal of Bahamas Moorings’ nature was not put out to competitive bidding via a request for proposal (RFP). 

Instead, several sources suggested the lease deal represented a privatisation of all safe, feasible anchorage and mooring sites throughout the Exuma cays outside of those in the Exuma Lands and Sea Park. In effect, they said the Government has given a private company a monopoly over these sites where it will be “mandatory” for boats and yachts to pay the fees levied by Bahamas Moorings.

That will now not happen after both the Government and Bahamas Moorings backed down in the face of public pressure. Michael Pintard, the Opposition’s leader, told Tribune Business he had “very deep concerns” over the lease deal which he branded “a clear conflict of interest”.

And Dr Hubert Minnis, his predecessor as Opposition leader, branded the arrangement as “very fishy”, adding: “It seems a bit strange and fishy. It doesn’t smell right.” The Government, in its Sunday statement on the deal, said it had an equity ownership stake in Bahamas Moorings but provided no details.

This, critics argued, meant it was a public-private partnership (PPP) deal. Besides challenging why the Bahamas Moorings deal had not been publicly announced, given that it involved the use of the Bahamian people’s tax money, they also questioned the Government’s justification for why the mooring/anchorage scheme was not put out to competitive bidding.

The Government, in its statement, said: “The public is further advised that a Request for Proposal was not required, as the project is a private commercial venture, albeit in the national interest, not involving government expenditures and was proposed to the Government.”

Besides pointing out the seeming contradictions between this and the assertion of an equity interest in Bahamas Moorings, several observers questioned whether this breaches the Government’s own PPP policy which is still posted on its website. This states that, in the case of unsolicited offers such as Bahamas Moorings, “procurement will generally be through an open, competitive tender process”.

Bahamas Moorings, in its statement yesterday, said: “The need for a structured and well-regulated mooring system remains evident, as unregulated anchoring continues to impact fragile marine ecosystems, including coral reefs and seagrass beds - critical habitats that sustain biodiversity and support The Bahamas’ economy.

“We fully support the Government’s ongoing efforts to explore solutions that align with conservation goals while considering the needs of local communities and the broader public.” However, questions were raised yesterday about the justification for the moorings/anchorage plan - to protect coral reefs and other ecosystems from anchors dragging on the seabed, including seagrass meadows key to the carbon credits plan.

Boaters yesterday said no bond fide boat owner would deliberately anchor on a reef, while warning that the scheme threatens to turn anchorages “into parking lots”. And several sources suggested many of the anchorage sites involved in the Bahamas Moorings deal are above sandy seabeds that contain none of the ecosystems that the deal is ostensibly seeking to protect.

Photos also emerged of buoys allegedly installed by Bahamas Moorings that were secured to the seabed by anchors and heavy link chains - exactly what they were supposed to prevent. “I’ve seen nothing friendly about the approach they have set up,” Dr Duane Sands, the FNM chairman, said.

Meanwhile, Mr Pintard, in a statement on the Bahamas Moorings deal, said: “At every turn, the allegations raise serious concerns about transparency, conflicts of interest and abuse of power.

How could the Prime Minister approve a multi-million dollar exclusive concession involving a sensitive seabed in one of our most pristine ocean environments, apparently without public consultation or a published Environmental Impact Assessment? Why was there no engagement with key stakeholders in Exuma and beyond? Why the secrecy surrounding this deal?”

Turning to the fact Sandra Kemp, deputy communications director in the Prime Minister’s Office, witnessed the lease agreement on Bahamas Moorings’ behalf when her husband, Philip A. Kemp II, was one of the company’s principals, the FNM leader added: “How is it possible that the Prime Minister’s deputy director of communications is a documented agent of Bahamas Moorings?

“How is it not a blatant conflict of interest that she and her husband - the apparent principal of the company - were able to negotiate a lucrative 20-plus-year deal in secrecy? Did the Prime Minister know that the principal of Bahamas Moorings has been a reported close business associate of a key senior advisor to his office?....”

Calling for the Bahamas Moorings deal to be “cancelled”, which it almost immediately was after his statement was issued, Mr Pintard said: “Other than their ties to the Office of the Prime Minister and a senior advisor to the Prime Minister, what justifies them being handed such a lucrative concession?

“Why was there no public procurement process to ensure the best possible deal for the Bahamian people? This doesn’t pass the smell test..... Any public officials involved in this abuse of power must be held accountable. If found guilty, they should be removed from office and face the full weight of the law.”