The Tribune

By FAY SIMMONS

TRIBUNE Business Reporter

jsimmons@tribunemedia.net

A GRAND Bahama advocacy group has challenged the economic benefits from Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) Cruises' proposed Billy Cay terminal, arguing that job creation estimates and local participation have not been sufficiently established.

In a formal objection submitted to the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) yesterday, Preserving Paradise Environmental Defense & Restoration (PPEDR) said the project's environmental impact assessment (EIA) estimates around 350 construction jobs and 320 full-time positions but does not establish what proportion will go to Bahamians.

C Allen Johnson, senior spokesperson for PPEDR, also questioned how much of the economic activity generated by the proposed Billy Cay cruise terminal will be retained within Grand Bahama, adding that projected passenger spending should be distinguished from the actual benefits flowing to local businesses and workers.

"Projected economic activity should be distinguished from net economic benefits retained within Grand Bahama," he said

The group called for an independent assessment of direct and indirect employment, Bahamian ownership, local procurement, retained spending, public revenue, infrastructure costs and potential economic leakage before the project's anticipated benefits are used to support environmental decision-making.

It added that the revenue anticipated under certain lease and concession arrangements remains unknown. PPEDR said it does not oppose cruise tourism or investment in Grand Bahama, but believes the proposed development's economic and environmental implications must be more fully established before regulators grant environmental clearance.

"We do not oppose cruise tourism as a category of economic activity. We oppose granting environmental clearance before the environmental risks, technical uncertainties, operational dependencies, cumulative impacts and public interest consequences of this particular proposal have been adequately established and assessed," said Mr Johnson.

He also raised concerns about the adequacy of environmental testing at the proposed terminal site, pointing to the industrial history of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement and the wider Freeport Harbour area.

Mr Johnson argued that decades of industrial, manufacturing, petroleum, marine and other commercial activity warrant a more comprehensive investigation into potential historical site contamination, including the possibility of buried pollutants being disturbed during construction.

PPEDR identified alleged discrepancies in the EIA's water and sediment sampling records, including references to five surface water sampling locations in one section but analytical results for three samples elsewhere. It also questioned differences between the sediment sampling locations described in the report and those identified in its tables.

"Without a reconciled dataset, DEPP cannot confidently establish where each reported result originated or whether the sampling adequately represents the areas likely to be disturbed," the objection stated.

The group is seeking original laboratory reports, field records, sampling maps and quality control documents, as well as independent confirmation of the testing results.

It also questioned the project's hurricane and flood resilience, highlighting figures in the EIA showing a present day, one-in-100-year extreme water level of around 5.1 metres above mean sea level, rising to 6.1 metres under the climate-change scenario examined.

This compares with a proposed Billy Cay elevation of around 3.2 metres above mean sea level.

PPEDR said the EIA acknowledges that Billy Cay and surrounding areas would flood under the modelled extreme conditions, and wants DEPP to require further evidence that critical infrastructure, including electrical installations, fuel systems, wastewater facilities and emergency access, would remain safe.

The objection also seeks greater clarity on the relationship between the proposed terminal and Freeport Harbour Company's east harbour expansion, including whether the development depends on additional dredging, excavation, turning basin works or construction material supply arrangements involving Bahama Rock.

The group argued that the environmental consequences of connected harbour works should be assessed cumulatively rather than treated as entirely separate projects.

Other concerns include the terminal's projected passenger volumes, wastewater calculations, water supply, solid waste disposal, marine navigation and the capacity of existing transportation and utility infrastructure to accommodate the development.

The EIA anticipates up to around 20,000 passengers on a major operating day, and around 3.36m annual passenger arrivals. PPEDR questioned how those projections translate into daily transportation requirements, infrastructure demand and environmental impacts.

In total, the group submitted 160 questions to DEPP, seeking detailed responses and supporting documentation covering the project's environmental assessment, engineering, economic projections, contractual arrangements and regulatory oversight.

It has formally asked the department to withhold a Certificate of Environmental Clearance (CEC) until the outstanding concerns have been addressed, including through independent technical reviews and additional environmental assessments where necessary.

"Environmental approval should follow a reliable understanding of a project's risks and impacts. It should not be used as a mechanism for postponing the resolution of fundamental uncertainties until construction is underway," the objection stated.

PPEDR also requested an extended written comment period and further public consultation where necessary, arguing that affected communities and other stakeholders should have sufficient opportunity to examine revised technical information before a final regulatory decision is made.