FCCA wants ‘eco-friendly’ piers

| 28/07/2015 | 39 Comments
Cayman News Service

Cruise ship in George Town Harbour, Grand Cayman (Photo by Dennie Warren Jr)

(CNS): The support of the cruise ship industry will be crucial to ensuring the costly proposed cruise berthing facility in George Town will produce a return and not leave a gaping hole in government’s still precarious financial recovery. The Florida Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA) has told CNS that the cruise lines are supportive of an “environmentally-friendly way to develop a cruise pier” but the sector has not yet offered its support for the current proposal, which does not meet the aspirations of the association.

The president of the Florida Caribbean Cruise Association, Michelle Paige, fell short of confirming claims by the Cayman Islands Government that without berthing facilities the destination would find cruise lines passing by in future. Paige made it clear that the FCCA supports the idea of developing berthing facilities but would not answer questions on future port calls if the country opts to protect its coral reefs rather than cater to mega-ships.

CNS also asked Paige if the FCCA would support the alternative of improved tendering and upgrades to the existing terminals but the president declined to answer or specify how much destruction of endangered coral reef was acceptable to the industry for the convenience of piers. But in a short statement in response to enquiries, Paige did emphasise again the importance of the environment to the sector.

“The FCCA and its 19 Member Lines support Grand Cayman’s efforts in finding an environmentally-friendly way to develop a cruise pier in the Cayman Islands,” the president said. “Like the government, we forecast that a new cruise pier would improve cruise passengers’ overall destination experience and benefit the destination’s economy through a higher share of cruise passengers disembarking and spending more time and money in the destination.”

She added, “George Town has become a top cruise destination through not only its products and offerings, but also through the constant efforts of the Cayman Islands government, and a new cruise pier presents the opportunity for the Caymans and cruise industry to further grow together. We respect the government; encourage them to continue exploring options in the best interests of both their economy and environment; and trust they will make the right decision.”

Paige has previously noted the importance of what a destination has to offer for the cruise industry over and above the ships that holidaymakers choose. Along with the history, culture and cuisine, it includes the environment and the marine habitat. The recent donation from Carnival Cruise Line towards repairing anchor damage in the harbour also reflects a degree of recognition by the industry that the marine habitat in George Town is valuable and needs protecting.

The quality of the harbour as a marine attraction for cruisers cannot be underestimated and the irony of destroying what the visitors want when they come to Cayman for the convenience of piers is not lost on the cruise line association.

Speaking at a presentation at Sunset House Friday night, organized by the SaveCayman campaign, local photographer Courtney Platt emphasised the quality of the reefs in George Town that are at risk from the combination of dredging, silt and turbidity. Showing an incredible collection of pictures taken on the various reefs and wrecks in the harbour, Platt said that the quality of the coral and marine life in the capital was some of the best on the islands.

“These reefs have not been over fished as the poachers don’t take anything from the harbour as it is under the nose of the Port Authority,” he told an audience of well over 100 people who watched the presentation.

Undermining the developing myth that there is nothing of significance in the area facing direct destruction from dredging, and that the silt and turbidity won’t harm the reefs, Platt showed image after image of pristine and thriving endangered coral in both the direct and indirect line of fire. Emphasising the significant loss to the wider local tourism product — and the cruise ship visitors — Platt also pointed to the significant pressure and damage that would be placed on Cayman’s remaining leading water attractions.

If the CIG commits to developing the piers, he said, the thousands of passengers arriving on the mega-ships would not be snorkelling or diving in the harbour, nor would they be taking glass bottom boat trips or riding the Atlantis submarines but instead heading to Stingray City, which is already often at capacity.

Regardless of the serious threats to the tourism product, government has still not made any public comment about the findings of the EIA. Despite the revelations about the extent of the destruction to the harbour’s marine life, there has been no official statement about the findings or any recognition of the damage this proposal will cause both environmentally and economically.

While the cost of this project will ultimately come from government revenue via Port Authority fees, the real and tangible benefits to the economy remain very much in question.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , ,

Category: development, Local News

Comments (39)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    “Right now the visitor rate is coming back up on its own….,” Really? It has nothing to do with the efforts and strategies implemented by the Ministry and DoT? No, of course not. It’s just happening all on its own!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Who says we cant do both? Funding for the airport is not in question – CIAA are paying for the majority of the redvelopment and Government has committed to provide the remaining 15 Million over the next 2 years. If and when the Government decided to move ahead with the piers, they will be funded in part by two of the largest cruise lines in the world. Check the Business case…. it makes interesting reading if enquiring minds REALLY want to know?

  3. Anonymous says:

    Why, exactly, do we have to attract the larger class ships? Is it just to increase the congestion in GT or to increase the numbers of passengers catered by the pre-arranged operators and still leave the majority of local independent operators holding only their signs? Or is it to increase the miniscule volume of cruise tourists who actually spend money here? Could it be just the greed of the merchant clique which controls the GT downtown (noting some of their family connections to present Gov’t)?

    Has Government considered the reality that the class of cruise ships we presently cater to will survive because after the “novelty” of the Oasis-class wears off, the majority of cruisers will not want to cruise on those mega-ships (small cities) with all the crowding and the perceived resulting social negatives they bring. Do our “powers that be” not monitor these trends or simply watch the same TV programs that many other people watch? This was the subject of a recent program and the cruise industry has projections indicating exactly that fact. The present class of cruise ships will be the most profitable within the next 15-20 years.

    So, exactly why are we insisting on expanding the port for the Oasis-class again? Perhaps those development funds should be better spent on upgrading the GT road network to better accommodate the present volume of visitors. Just saying.

    In any case, the present proposal is a sure environmental disaster.

  4. Anonymous says:

    ” the real and tangible benefits to the economy remain very much in question.” I’m guessing CNS hasn’t read through the PWC report showing a possible $1 billion plus increase over the next 20 years.

    • Anonymous says:

      The emphasis being on the word ‘possible.’ Without any actual long-term commitment from the cruise lines that $1 billion figure is just blind speculation.

    • WaYaSay says:

      You have got to be kidding me……you cannot be that stupid.

      The fact that PWC categorized that $1 billion as “possible”, means that it is NOT “real and tangible……….If it was “real and tangible PWC would have categorized it as “guaranteed”

    • Cathy Church says:

      The cruise business is a fickle one and it is not impossible that we go into a major debt and they all decide to go to China, or the passengers don’t have a good time in the crowds and our harbour sucks so they go where they can sell better excursions. Notice that the FCCA will NOT commit to any demand, because they know full well that stopping here is a good idea with or without this huge pier. They would still be happy with other options for landing their ships than this current plan.

      Also, which of the many PWC reports are you talking about? The one about the airport is important, too, and we can’t do both.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Yeh, sounds doable.

    Step1: Remove coral from pier footprint. Step 2: Scan footprint with underwater ground penetrating radar. Step 4: Develop load bearing contour of bottom footprint. Step 5: 3D print pier sections in polymer concrete. Step 6: Drop in pier sections like tooth implants, fuse together, drill through and anchor to bottom.

    All done. Just that the technology is not available to do it similar to tooth implants yet.

  6. Homo Sapien says:

    The phantom cruise pier is intended as nothing more than a distraction while we slip same sex marriage in painlessly through the back door.

  7. The Sufi says:

    It is clear that eventually not every one will be pleased no matter what. The merchants, restaurants want the port built to increase their bottom line. The divers, underwater photographers don’t want it because it will effect their bottom line.it is a win win for Adrian Briggs/ Sunset House because whatever happens it will benefit his bottom line but I kind of believe him when he said that he will not support the piers if they are going to destroy the environment he could sell off his tenders. The rest of you really need to understand that this is life.

    • Cathy Church says:

      Yes, this is life. We all need to adjust our business plan to fit the economy. When the economy tanked a few years back, I changed how I do business. I added services, kept my prices low, kept overhead down, cut my own salary. Some businesses in George Town overbuilt, suddenly had more competition from Camana Bay and overstocked on things like watches. Now they are struggling, perhaps, with a bad business plan or just bad luck on the timing. But does that mean that the government should bail them out by taking on a 200 million-dollar debt that will create massive disruption of business during construction, etc., etc. And don’t say that the whole island gains — this type of debt will suck us dry. Look at what debt is doing to Greece!! Did the last port improvement project yield a lot of money?? Right now the visitor rate is coming back up on its own, and hopefully many of the merchants are finding improvements in sales. I hope so, because we need everyone to get better, not just one sector at the expense of another.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Bluntly, the FCCA comments are mindless BS.

    Let’s not lose sight of one fact – Michelle Paige and the FCCA are not the cruise industry. They don’t own any of the vessels, they don’t have to answer to shareholders and most importantly they don’t pay us any port fees.

    The only people in a position to make a valid comment on this are companies like Carnival and Royal Caribbean because at the end the day it’s their commitment and their cruise arrivals that will have to cover the cost of this dock if it’s built.

    So why is nobody talking to the cruise lines and why are they staying silent?

    • Cathy Church says:

      Good question, I would assume that either the cruise industry does not want to bear the burden of guilt if the environment is really hurt, or there are things going on behind closed doors. They can be like bullies with threats, but they don’t seem to like to make commitments in writing. They need to stay flexible and switch to whatever port gets the most bookings. They are looking at their bottom line, just as hard as we are looking at our own. But it is indeed very hard for us to discuss this issue without REALLY knowing what the cruise industry will REALLY do with or without a pier.

  9. S. Stirrer says:

    Who cares about the FCAA. We want to hear the views of the Atlantis, R.S.V.P. and Olivia groups. They are the ones we want to be sure to still be on the itinerary’s of.

    • Anonymous says:

      So you’re saying we should toss 95% of the cruises lines? Eah that sounds line a smart idea smh

      • Anonymous says:

        Actually that one was geared at the other feature article this week….those companies fly a multi colored flag of their stern.

  10. Anonymous says:

    This is mainly a good public stance. They are saying that yes as we know we need to be careful of our environmental concerns but they also know a balance is needed. The piers are needed and CIG will ha e to do his and keep as many mitigating factors in process to make sure the surrounding reefs are safe.

    • George Town Shopper says:

      Anon 11:41, The piers are needed??? Why? We’re trying to accommodate the passengers from the regular-size cruise ships and really not doing very well when several ships are in. Bringing in several large cruise ships at one time would be counter productive by making a poor experience for the visitors. Any person who is in George Town when several cruisers are in knows this. It’s awful!

      • Anonymous says:

        The only thing that’s awful about it is having to stand in line for hours waiting for the tenders to take group by group out to the ships one at a time

        • Anonymous says:

          FWIW, all boats can be tendered at the same time, but only one boat could dock at the berthing facility at a time, or at least that’s what Baird said.

        • Fuzzy Mein says:

          I didn’t have to stand in line for hours for tendering the two times I visited Grand Cayman.

        • Cathy Church says:

          WELL SAID, Anon 12:18. We need a better clearance processing facility to cut way down on all of the lines. That is very true, much cheaper and doesn’t hurt ANY coral. That way the tenders are not being delayed by clearance on the boats. We could even make the tenders more fun, make the areas where people are waiting more fun with music, or a dancer, or magic tricks, there are myriad street entertainers that would add fun. Tell our visitors that we value them. Take better care of them after they have spent all of that important money. You have hit the nail on the head! Greatly improve on our land facility.

    • WaYaSay says:

      In my opinion, the most attractive thing about tendering is that they do NOT have to land ALL of the cruise ship visitors into George Town. They can land 50% of them into West Bay, where 50% of the excursions sold onboard are located.

      This fact alone will cut the waiting time to go back on board by 50%, and if some thought is put into the landings design, this wait time can be cut even further, and, the idea of tourists waiting in the hot sun, can be eliminated completely within the design, simply by incorporating indoor air-conditioning.

      The second most attractive thing about up scaling the tendering service, with purpose built landings, is the huge reduction in public debt, or, deferred income brought about by spending considerably less money to address the problem. A few landings makes a lot more sense economically…………and……….no dredging needed at all.

      The third most attractive thing about requiring the tendering company to provide a world class tendering experience, is that we will NOT have to cater to the Mega Oasis Class cruise ships.
      The prospect of two of them docking in George Town and landing up to 12,0000 passengers each week (622,000 per year) and the strain that will put on our already taxed infrastructure, is an idea that NO Government should countenance, while saying nothing of, nor making plans for, the additional $100 million it will require within the next 5 years to upgrade infrastructure, to disperse them, on land, to their destination.

      This “the sky is falling” argument that these 622,000 passengers will sail right by Cayman every year, if we do not build the Mega dock, holds no water with me.
      Every year, thousands of international ships sail through Cayman waters, not because they want to see or visit Cayman, simply because we are right next to the sea lanes for all shipping in Central America, The Western Caribbean, the American Gulf Coast and Asia to Europe international shipping (in the middle of the ocean road so to speak).
      I point this out simply to say, that 75%, or more, of ALL Western Caribbean cruise ships sail right by Cayman (and 2 Mega ships) every year.
      Why not fish in the pond with the most fish? The increase the merchants seek, can be achieved by catering to a few more medium ships each week (that now sail right by Cayman). The impact on the infrastructure can be minimized by spreading out the landing sites.

      Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that we should not try to increase our cruise visitors by as much as 622,000 per year, I am saying we cannot land them all in the middle of George Town and expect to not negatively impact our residents and our stay over tourism…….which also needs to be increased, not decreased. I am saying that we can mitigate the impact of this increase if we STOP thinking, and talking, about this Mega Dock

      The only way I see for us to accomplish this is through multiple landing sites, (3 or 4) placed closer to the eventual excursion destination, and bypassing George Town, for those who come ashore in George Town, only to get transportation to another destination on Island.

      Did I say this before? My apologies to anyone offended by me repeating myself……..I am getting old I guess.
      Before I forget……I cannot take any more public debt or deferred tourism income…………..and neither can Government!

    • Cathy Church says:

      I hate to keep repeating this, but the word mitigating means “effort to reduce” but it does not say to reduce by how much. You could pick up ONE chunk of the Balboa and One chunk of coral and stick it somewhere and that would legally count as fulfilling your obligation at mitigation.

      But there IS NO WAY to successfully move an ecosystem like the Balboa, Balboa reef, Soto’s reef south, etc. without perhaps spending a LOT of money, the budget for which is NOT included in the EIA. And if you could saw it up and pick it up while all of the critters scatter or got smushed or sawed in half, there is no comparable place to put it where snorkelers, glass bottom boats etc. can see it just a few feet below the surface. Remember, Eden rocks and Devil’s grotto are in the fatal silt zone.

      It would be like trying to move an acre of mangrove ecosystem and sticking it in front of Seven Mile Beach.

      • Cathy Church says:

        What is MITIGATION of the REEFS: Here is the actual copy from the EIA
        16.6.1. Mitigating loss of coral cover and coral habitat

        Mitigation measures such as coral relocation are an expensive undertaking with uncertain results. While coral relocation programs can be successful under the right circumstances, it does not compensate in full for the loss resulting from dredging and should not be looked upon as an all‐ encompassing environmental restitution for replacing an established and complex habitat. In the case of coral reefs, habitat protection and conservation are valued above compensation. Once destroyed, coral restoration cannot replace the ecosystem functionality or the associated goods and services provided by these ecosystems. Similarly, mitigating the losses associated with the cultural services (tourism and culture) will come at a cost to the local population. For example, the relocation plan for the Balboa will be judged not only on the cost and the execution, but also on the success of preserving the structure of the wreck along with the corals and other marine fauna that have colonized the wreck surfaces over the years.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Vote out this entire government in 2017 if they try build this dock

    • Anonymous says:

      That’s exactly what happened in TCI when they tried to build a pier in Grand Turk right in the middle of Cockburn Town – the government was kicked out.

      The compromise solution (Carnival’s cruise centre) has worked out very well. I was there when it was being built and only one dive site was lost. Maybe there’s a lesson there?

  12. Anonymous says:

    I’m pretty sure that the pro port group never said there is nothing in George town. Hey simply state that the stated 15 acres is not all coral. The EIA confirms this saying that the avg coral cover I George town is 20%. This whole “there is nothing” campaign is again just misdirection and misrepresentation as usual by save Cayman.

  13. Anonymous says:

    There we have it

  14. Anonymous says:

    If cruise piers were necessary for continued calls into the Cayman Islands as statement by pro dock campaigners why have they failed to express this clearly?

    • Anonymous says:

      Still waiting to hear from them. Carnival …NCL , Etc no where is it written that if the dock in George Town is not built , the cruise lines will stop coming to Grand Cayman.
      Conversely…if the dock is built , that they will guarantee continued & increased arrivals.

      • Anonymous says:

        Use your common sense, the world is evolving, experience and reality proves that what’s being done today will change tomorrow. To make it simple, just like the oil tankers yesteryear they built 85000 ton ships which were capable of transporting half a million barrel of crude oil per trip, in today’s wold that is not feasible, they have now built 375000 ton tankers which carry 2 million barrel, the smaller tankers were all scrapped for recyclable metal. Due to better economic sense the cruise lines are following the same business model. The two majors cruise lines Carnival and Royal Caribbean have between them, come 2018 will have 8 of the mega ships that will require piers. Tendering will be a thing of the past. And without piers we won’t have cruise passengers. We have to stop judging this project with personal emotions, and self serving, there are technology and engineering today that can basically build anything anywhere. Man landed on the moon,

        • Anonymous says:

          @7:55 The mega-liners are floating resorts not island hoppers. They may be building eight of them but there are no plans to include Grand Cayman on their itineraries even if there is a dock. If you build the dock expecting them to arrive here you are going to have a very, very long wait. The sooner people get their heads round that the sooner we can have an informed debate on the issue.

          • Cathy Church says:

            Of the 28 cruise ships that are being planned through 2020 they are all normal to very small except four that are large like the Oasis class. Of those, one is headed for the Mediterranean, one is headed for China.

            So my point is, is this current plan WORTH the risk??? I believe that it is not worth it. I believe that there are better ways to attract lots of cruise business without destroying one of the biggest reasons that cruiser like coming here.

        • Cathy Church says:

          There is a difference between REQUIRE piers and WANT piers. The Oasis class can be tendered. We have already done that during medical emergencies and they tender to their private island. There are 28 ships currently planned through 2020. This includes two Oasis class ships, are you also including the smaller Quantum and Break away class ships in your figure of 8 mega ships? I do not know why they cannot be tendered.

          But what intrigues me are the number of luxury, very small ships that are planned and that we should court, perhaps. They may spend more, leave behind less mess and may be more likely to return as stay-over tourists. Just a speculation, just like all of the rest of our predictions about the cruise industry.

    • Anonymous says:

      Because the FCCA doesn’t have a clue what the cruise industry is really doing. They’re only good for holding over-priced conventions where they hand out junk like free polo shirts and the sooner CIG get their head around that the better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.