ACT accuses CPR of bias and scare tactics

(CNS): The Association for the Advancement of Cruise Tourism in the Cayman Islands (ACT), which is pushing hard for a ‘yes’ in the government’s planned referendum on whether or not Cayman should build cruise berthing facilities, has taken aim at the non-profit campaigners who oppose a pier project. In a statement, the ACT accused the Cruise Port Referendum Cayman (CPR) of bias and scaring people ahead of the vote. However, the pro-port group has made inaccurate claims about the cruise industry.

The ACT, which has the support of the tourism ministry and wealthy merchants, claimed that cruise tourism supports over 3,000 Caymanians, including tour operators, taxi drivers, retail workers and water sports operators, many of them small business owners who rely on cruise passengers for their livelihoods. However, it is evident that these workers and small businesses are not dependent on cruises alone but also cater to Cayman’s overnight guests.

It is also a fact that a huge number of those working in tourism are not local people but work permit holders. There are far more expatriates than locals driving taxis and buses, piloting boats, and working in shops, restaurants and bars.

Operators and merchants hoping the broader public will support their desire for a pier say the questions in the survey compiled by the CPR activists are skewed. They said it was not an objective attempt to gauge public sentiment but a “propaganda tool meant to push respondents towards opposing the cruise berthing facility”.

“The survey’s misleading questions fail to consider sustainable development methods, like the use of pilings for piers, which allow the sea to flow freely and protect marine environments,” the ACT stated, despite the clear dangers of any development in a marine environment as sensitive and unique as the George Town Harbour.

The extreme environmental damage surrounding any potential cruise project is one of the major reasons so many ordinary people oppose the idea. Many believe the economic and environmental cost of developing piers is not worth the risk, especially since there has been very little evidence to show the true extent of the impact on a limited number of merchants and operators if cruise tourism continues to decline in the absence of piers.

For many, reducing Cayman’s dependency on cruise ships by transitioning those businesses and operators towards overnight visitors is not seen as a negative thing. It would lead to a reduction in permit holders, ease the pressure on the infrastructure, reduce overcrowding at Cayman’s leading attractions and beaches, and protect the environment. And given the small number of people likely to be impacted, other policies, such as changes to the immigration law, could help them pivot towards overnight business or other opportunities.

While admitting that there will be environmental risks, the ACT has accused CPR of exaggerating them. The group claimed the proposed piers would be built using “modern, sustainable techniques that minimise disruption”, even though there is no current plan or project on the table for a pier in George Town or anywhere else.

In a further misleading claim, the ACT said the question of any impact of a cruise berthing project in George Town on Seven Mile Beach is settled, implying that studies and scientific reports found “no apparent sediment transport linkage between George Town Harbour and Seven Mile Beach”.

This is simply not true. Studies done so far have been limited in scope, and in the face of climate change, rising sea levels, coastal overdevelopment and natural fluctuations, any development in the harbour could further erode Seven Mile Beach or disrupt the flow of sand, depending on the type of project proposed.

The ACT claimed a berthing facility would eliminate the daily discharge of emissions from ships while arguing that without a pier, the number of ships calling here would fall dramatically.

The ACT also ignored the changing global attitude towards the cruise sector, especially from residents in destinations overwhelmed by the huge mega-ships sailing the sea from the Arctic Circle to the Greek Islands. The pro-cruise lobby claimed regional competitors like the Bahamas and Jamaica have “invested in modern port facilities”, but in both countries, there have been numerous problems with their cruise sector, and the trickle-down economics of this business have not trickled very far.

Nevertheless, the group believes that because the major cruise lines will eventually stop calling at Grand Cayman, we must have a dock, even as they admit this is a rapidly changing industry “with cruise lines investing in private islands and onboard experiences”. This means calls could still decrease even if Cayman takes the financial and environmental risk of engaging in the disruptive and costly project.

As the battle heats up between those who want to see Cayman develop berthing facilities and those who see it as a potential catastrophe for everyone here, the government has yet to offer any clear facts or evidence to justify taking this risk that will be almost impossible to undo if things go wrong.

Tourism Minister Kenneth Bryan had suggested the vote could take place in late October or early November, though no date has been set, no question posed and no legislation has been drafted to pave the way for the national poll, which was approved by the Cabinet some six weeks ago.

See the full statement from the ACT below: