Ministry seeks to ‘safeguard’ cruise project
Proposed cruise dock for Grand Cayman
(CNS): The tourism ministry has said that following due process and collecting as much information as possible about the proposed cruise berthing facility in George Town is to “safeguard the project from unintended consequences in the future”. The comment comes in response to the position taken by the Cayman Islands Tourism Association not to support the project. It also implies that, although Cabinet has not made up its collective mind about the dock, the tourism ministry is treating the project as a go.
With the increasing opposition to the project, which now appears to be supported by only a minority of George Town retailers and a limited number of tour operators, the obvious support for the project from the ministry — and presumably the tourism minister — in the face of the the stand taken by CITA is putting them on what looks like a collision course with the very industry it is meant to represent.
While government sources have told CNS that absolutely no decision has yet been made by Cabinet to move the project to the next stage, the tourism ministry said that it has already asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to update its Outline Business Case, which it prepared for the ministry, with the findings from the environmental impact assessment.
In a statement released by the ministry Monday, officials said that in addition to the massive and comprehensive EIA, the ministry has also commissioned another Benthic Habitat Report. However, the authors of the EIA already supplied a separate comprehensive benthic survey in a 28-page appendix to the substantive document which is available on the DoE website.
See the benthic survey report in the EIA prepared by Baird here
The EIA gives a clear indication of the extent of the destruction to George Town Harbour if the project goes ahead, initially by the dredging, then by the silt and turbidity during construction, and then after it is built from the cruise ships.
The Balboa Shipwreck and reef is located in 10 to 30 feet of water immediately in front of the cruise ship landing and will be completely removed by dredging operations if the cruise berth goes ahead as planned. Many consider the Balboa to be both the number one and number two of the top ten dive sites in Grand Cayman – night dive is #1, day dive is #2 (Photo by Courtney Platt)
In the statement (posted below) the ministry said it had gone to great lengths to “ensure that this process has been open and transparent. We have ensured that relevant documentation, including the Strategic Outline Case (SOC), the OBC and the EIA have been widely published.”
However, the ministry had not been as forthcoming about the additional benthic survey being undertaken. It was not until CNS contacted the ministry after sources had revealed the contract had been signed and the process well underway, without any public release on the matter, that the chief officer confirmed the additional survey.
Following the story on CNS, where readers drew their own conclusions about the ministry’s decision to seek another view of the seabed from different consultants, the ministry then released a formal statement confirming the $26,000 contract.
In Monday’s statement the ministry said its effort to garner “relevant information” remained “a work in progress”, as it justified the process and the decision to conduct another seabed survey.
“While this might seem to be a protracted exercise to some, it is designed to facilitate scrutiny from the financial, technical and environmental standpoints, and safeguard the project from unintended consequences in the future,” the ministry stated, giving a clear indication that it believes the development of piers in George Town will become a reality.
Nevertheless, the ministry said it remained “committed to ensuring that the views stakeholders and the wider public continues to be an inherent part of the process”.
Statement addressing CITA Feedback on Cruise Berthing Facility_20 July 2015
Category: development, Local News, Marine Environment, Science & Nature
“Only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we cannot eat money.” –Cree Indian Proverb
The pro dock folks have got some a$$hole hacking this site as I have not been able to give a thumbs up or down for about 3 days now.
CNS: The voting limits are set by IP address, so I’m guessing that someone else on your network is getting in their votes before you.
Good guess but I am the only one using this IP address and computer. To be sure, I monitor this discussion regularly and some of the comments have inspired me to try to vote several times. I have been regularly rejected when trying to do so but now I cannot vote on anything on your site. Cheers.
I think its fair to say that all the votes for this article have been skewed by trolls on the website.
Whatever about the commentaries and arguments from both sides on this issue, you can bet your hat on it that this project will go ahead – there are too many egos at stake to allow the CIG to back down at this stage. Politically, it has just too much momentum to be stopped. As someone who thinks it has the potential to be disastrous from several perspectives, we can only hope that, for the sake of the island, that opinion is completely wrong. It would be dreadful to sit and watch it all go ” pear shaped “.
If it does become a disaster we can blame the expats for it and their greed, it is the readily available go to
look at the thumbs…..this article has been hijacked/trolled by one side….
back to the story….can anybody tell me what me what “safeguard the project from unintended consequences in the future’ means…. it reminds me of mac and his intellectual property…..
fyi, Mr Platt was one of the main surveyors in the Baird EIA for the Benthic survey. It only makes sense that now that he is leading the charge against the port that CIG has an obligation to the public to make sure the information is correct.
Really? The chap leading the petition is a professional photographer. Are you sure its the same Platt?
Yep, same one.
Professional photographer and former dive master, yes that’s him!
They should also ask pwc to update the report for the developments in Cuba! How will Cuba opening affect future cruise revenues in Cayman? That’s a big question!
Meantime the main issue, the Dump, is being totally ignored. Waiting for the lightning to strike?
Perhaps they are thinking that with these supposed “mega ships” visiting, the tourists view of Cayman will no longer be obscured by this monstrosity as they will be able to see past it all the way to Rum Point?
It sounds like they are taking the “Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead” approach.
Mac was gambling with the peoples money and got away with it. The PPM is gambling with the future of the Cayman Islands. A much greater sin than Mac’s. They can not be allowed to go ahead with such a dangerous choice.
Seriously? Mac was full go with the Chinese. The impact of his project would’ve made any other look miniscule in comparison
Mac was not successful, thank God. But he did gamble with money he borrowed from the people. I think we can all agree that even though he was found not legally guilty , he was morally wrong. Further if this projects goes ahead and part of what the EIA says could happen it will be damning for the country. Like Mac’s plan this one needs to be stopped also.
I agree with poster 10:50. These CNS articles are just an opportunity to hear what the eco guys want.
and we don’t need a newspaper for that, we can go to the Save Cayman website hosted by the manager of Sunset House – owned by surprise — the same guys making millions off the tender boats.
can’t blame them for not wanting the docks and having their monopoly threatened.
These guys who own the tenders have been bringing these tourists ashore for 30+ years to fatten your pockets as well as others in Cayman too right?
I find it crazy that a few Caymanians are willing to sell out their country for a few dollars whilst others with no attachment to this place are willing to do what is right to save our precious resources. You people are deluded and blind as always.
Doesn’t that sound familiar? Like all those who have sold their land to the Condo developers and now complain because they cannot access the beach…..
If this goes ahead and the damage is done but you do not get this result you are dreaming for, I suppose it will also be someone else’s fault too right?
Whilst we are at it, lets just get rid of all the marine parks and seasons and make it a free for all!
Don’t you find it curious that the tender business is a monopoly? Why aren’t there more Caymanian entrepreneurs in the tender business?
Don’t you find it curious that those members of government so committed to building a dock have economic interests in maximising day tripper headcount from the cruise ships. But no corruption or conflict of interest, oh no. The decision is being made on based on economic and environmental advice alone – even if it has to be rewritten to fit the script!
Specifically who at Carnival or Royal Caribbean has told Cayman to build this thing? Does such a person actually exist?
Don’t our Leaders refer to the people who use these cruise lines as “Sangwich Eata’s”? I can see the millions they will be spending now if this facility is built.
Nobody and that’s the real problem. If the cruise lines don’t want in who does?
Only God can help the Cayman Islands. After that statement from the Ministry of Tourism it is clear that Deputy Premier and Minister of Tourism Moses Kirkonnell and Gerry Kirkonnell Deputy Chairman of Port Authority Board of Directors are running the Progressives. Premier Alden Mclaughlin and the rest of his party members are merely puppets for the handful of GT merchants who support this “white elephant” but desperately need the project to happen in order to safeguard their position as the ruling class and elite of Caymans society. SMH
Do you not remember that the UDP, and every other previous government wanted to build these docks? They all know their voters, the Caymanians want and need this.
The common denominator is that our politicians want a $200mln project to siphon-off a mln here, a mln there to feather their nests for retirement. If not this, then some other large capex scheme with a similar scale of misappropriation and/or cronyism kickback “consultant” potential. These guys really look desperate now that public interest is against them. The FCO will not allow this borrowing anyway. A functional ACC should really be all over this.
The only people I have heard and seen who want this are the Kirkonnell’s, Hamaty’s and Tax Drivers.
The Cruise lines themselves haven’t even said it.
We all need it because it funds government and it addresses the cargo port issue and GT revitalisation. This is a quote from a previous published article:
“Mr Ronnie Anglin, Co-Owner of Captain Marvin’s Watersports and Owner of Cayman-in-a-Nutshell, said Cayman’s Port Cayman’s Future was supported by those who want to ensure there is open and honest debate based on facts surrounding the proposed cruise berthing facility – namely from the water sports, taxi and tours, retailers, restaurants, land and water-based attractions sectors.
“This is a decision that will impact the entire country,” he said. “Many have said it is only the retailers pushing back, but it’s an issue for all of us. Government income from cruise tourism helps to fund schools, hospitals, housing, roads and other important infrastructure that keeps our country running.”
“In addition to the cruise tourism issue, the EIA shows cargo traffic is expected to grow at about five percent per year. At that rate, the port will reach capacity within 10 to 20 years. The current proposal is the only design to date that provides a solution to Cayman’s growing cargo problem,” he said.”
Taking out the biggest loan in Cayman Islands history on a blind hail mary on future customers is not the makings of furure CIG revenue. It is the beginning of direct taxation and the multi-generational subsidization of the loudest jerk proponents.
Interesting how when the main point of the project – cruise docks – were clearly unjustifiable the engineering company doing the EIA submitted an EIA and engineering proposal for a combined cruise & cargo port. That amounts to their bid for the engineering contract for said port? – line, sinker, …
You’d think a Ministry of Tourism come could up with better spin when trying to get people to buy what they’re selling. – The Ministry of Tourism is acting shamefully on this, doing an end run around their own consultants (and public opinion) by trying to get a second assessment that says what they want it to say. Interestingly those results haven’t been released yet. Makes me wonder what they do say. (Or at least did say before the Ministry got them a la Min. Education.)
I have a suggestion for DoT – find out what the actual cruise lines think about this and what their future plans are then let us all know.
To date the only contact DoT has apparently had with the potential customers for this facility has been through the FCCA. Whatever else the FCCA may be it cannot make the kind of future financial commitments that we need from the cruise lines to go ahead with the dock. Unfortunately, for reasons that are not clear DoT seem strangely unaware of this fact.
We’ve had repeated assurances that the cruise lines are in the loop on this project backed up by threats from business owners that cruise ships will stop visiting Grand Cayman if the dock isn’t built but the one thing we don’t have is any direct comment from people like Carnival and Royal Caribbean.
How hard is it? A few emails? Some phone calls? Heck, any half-decent journalist could do it in a couple of days through the company press offices so why don’t DoT do it? Are they worried about what the response will be?
You can tell by the thumbs down here just how hard this topic is being trolled. How anyone can object to a sensible suggestion like this beats.
Forget the environmental issues – they’re too complicated and way too emotive for most people to grasp anyway – and ask yourself what proof we have that this project will make money.
If it’s going to make money for the islands in general and not run up a huge debt that can never be repaid it needs to be built. The problem right now is that the only real beneficiaries seem to be a few individuals trying to top up their pension funds and, apart from a few newspaper ads, they haven’t yet indicated any willingness to put any of their money into the project.
“Forget the environmental issues” you have to be kidding. The environmental impact should be the top importance. Destroy that and you destroy Cayman!
CIG doesn’t have a spare $200mln and can’t borrow without either a sweetheart leasehold swap with Dart or direct taxation to be borne by every one of us. I have a terrible feeling our great grandchildren will all be subsidizing Kirk Freeport and the taxi union if this goes ahead. On top of the irreversible environmental destruction.
Borrow borrow – I see Greece.
12:48 I was being sarcastic. The only thing people pushing for this dock really understand is money in their pockets – proving they aren’t going to make any is a heck of a lot more effective argument than trying to explain environmental impact to them. The antis need to change tack and show that the dock is simply not going to make anyone any money rather than trying to persuade people who don’t give a damn about the environment that it’s harmful.
So what you’re saying is because the majority don’t agree with you it must be a “conspiracy” time to wake up, the tide is turning and people are starting to see the truth for what it is.
Why not just build a Port, in a less sensitive location?
Like Haiti…to which the answer is: they are. Cayman shouldn’t aspire to compete with Haiti in mass tourism. We have only a handful of unique standout offerings: the huge and relatively plastic-free smb beach, the water clarity and reef bioversity, and Stingray City as a wild marine interaction attraction. These things cannot handle mass tourism. These are what people read about and pay to come see – the many other unique wonders we know and love are gravy, but we risk our top level fundamental appeal in this dogheaded pursuit of environmental and economic atrocities.
There is no doubt that the cruise port proposal smells of a forgone conclusion at this very early stage and in the face of so much opposition, and for that I say “Shame on our government!”.
Also, something else has occurred to me recently. As “Costa Concordia” showed us, nearshore ship accidents and collisions can easily happen even in this day of modern technology. This port design significantly increases the chances of a 2 or multi-ship collision or a ship run aground mishap simply by the close proximity between the vessels and the land – a concern / risk we have never really had before.
If that was to happen and one or more ships capsize in our port, spilling unknown amounts of gallons of oil, petrol and chemicals into our waters – which will inevitably drift and pollute not only the dive sites in the immediate area, but also our (formerly) pristine Seven Mile Beach – who will be responsible? Who will say “sorry”? Who will CLEAN IT UP? Our MLA’s? Alden? Moses? McKeeva?
Whatever the case we know we do not have the equipment or expertise in this regard. Will we have to wait days and weeks for international assistance? There are far too many negatives about this proposal in my humble opinion.
“No” to the proposed cruise port.
Don’t compare the Costa Concordia accident to potential cruise dock berthing as a Doom Cast scenario. The C.C. capsizing was caused by the captains disregard for the cruise lines directives on course & track , showboating and being distracted by his girlfriend aboard.
Still…….I agree that having such large ships in close proximity to each other alongside a dock, shallow shore nearby, potential for a strong wind event to cause a problem may exist , though I’m no expert.
Of more concern is berthing attempts to come alongside { or depart ) in weather that is turning , winter Nor’ westers and the like. Are we to assume the port will provide tugboat assistance for the ships in any such events ?
I am fully aware of the details and course of events that led to the capsizing of the Costa Concordia. The simple truth is – none of that actually matters. (I’m sure many of the captains in our waters have steamy affairs onboard as well.)
What does matter is the fact that a cruise ship capsized close to shore and is proof it could happen anywhere, including Cayman.
Other than that, your post essentially mirrors my concerns.
It is difficult to determine whether you are in support of or opposed to the CBF. Care to clarify?
– Whodatis
(P.S. Answer as if you don’t know it’s me.)
West Indian Marine might be willing to provide tug services, for a fee. 🙂
It’s obvious from the slant taken in all the CNS articles that they are too invested in influencing their readers to be objective reporters on this issue.
1050PM I’d have to disagree. Strongly. As most people (maybe not you?) can tell by what the government is doing/saying, it is obvious from their slant that this is a DONE DEAL and they are merely trying to CYA (cover your a$$). This port will be done. Too many promises made, and most likely $ changed hands, to undo. To the detriment of this entire island and all of the people, even those with their hand in the pot, this port will be built.
Then we can all say ‘I told you so’, either way, good or bad.
1050PM AMEN. You said it like it is.
907am – maybe your buds see this as a done deal, but I don’t and none of my friends and neighbors do. We see this as the big bucks ‘tendering millionaires and their employees’ funding the expat environmentalist to stop progress. Like they have done for years. Someone needs to stand up for the average guy trying to make a living in the tourism industry.
1240 pm who has brought all these persons the shore all these years to help build your business to where it is today?
Your comment should read “Who have made MILLIONS carrying on a monopoly and holding back Caymanian development all these years”
Please tell me, if the pier is built, what are all these cruiseshippers coming to see? now they come to snorkel the wrecks and easily accessible sites like Eden Rock, Devils Groto, wreck of the Balboa. You think they are all going to come off the ship to go to the same jewelery stores as everyother port?
May be Sting ray city, which is over capacity now on a busy day.
Ahhh now I see, if you destroy all the natural reefs and biodiversity then the only place these people can go is to pay to see artificial (this is what cayman used to look like) at the Turtle farm or the dolphin farms
Why do you want to destroy Cayman’s uniqueness and make it the same as ever other port, but with out the rich history?
So you would agree to no piers if other people could join in the tendering, that seems easier than putting your great grandchildren in debt with a destroyed ecosystem, just for some perceived benefit to a few now.
Think you will find that the owners of the duty free industry are taking care of that. Of course, they are not doing it for you, but they have the same interest in maximising head count and the same apparent lack of concern for the environment or long term future. Try making a living in the tourism industry then, because a dock is only worthwhile if what the tourists come here to see is still there.
They’d sure like it that way, but CIG has no money, and the FCO will not back-stop a loan with full faith and credit of UK, based on the very flimsy business assumptions being bantered around, and/or in the face of common sense and prevailing resident sentiment. More likely these are the closing chapters of a feather-nesting boondoggle, of the classic sort.