Tourist sector says ‘No’ to port
George Town Harbour (Photo by Courtney Platt)
(CNS): The private sector body which represents the country’s tourism industry has stated clearly that its members do not support government’s proposed cruise berthing plans. The Cayman Islands Tourism Association (CITA), which has a broad and diverse membership, from major hoteliers and dive operators to retailers and excursion firms, said ‘no’ on Thursday to the controversial project as a result of the findings in the Environmental Impact Assessment and the opinion of the majority of its members.
CITA said that the decision to oppose the plans for the cruise facility was not easy “because the topic is extremely polarizing based on individual member business’ focus”. However, the association said that a survey indicated the majority of its members are not backing the current proposal.
“This position has been reached after careful review of the documentation available, individual CITA Sector meetings and a survey of our members where the majority of the respondents indicated that they did not support the current proposal,” the statement said. CITA also noted that it wanted to share the information it learned during this review with government and discuss a sustainable healthy cruise sector that is beneficial to the tourism product.
The position of the powerful lobby group, which has more than 250 members, is likely to undermine the pro-campaign efforts of a group of prominent local merchants who are urging government to press on, regardless of the destruction that the EIA has revealed. But as the number of people supporting the project appears to dwindle, the Save Cayman campaign and other groups who believe the proposed port plan cannot be justified are gaining international support.
World renowned dive photographer Cathy Church is the latest person to record a video for the Save Cayman campaign, emphasising not just the environmental catastrophe that the port will bring but the fact that the underwater world is Cayman’s fundamental strong point when it comes to tourism. In four short video clips Church explains that without the reefs, the water around Cayman will get deeper and deeper and the waves bigger and bigger.
She also pointed out that moving the natural reefs and coral on the wrecks is not an option. She said the coral is where it is in George Town harbour because that is where it can survive.
Meanwhile, over 8,300 people have signed an international petition to stop the project and the Save Cayman campaign is hosting a special big screen free event at Sunset House on Friday 24 July from 7-9 pm to show everyone exactly what will be destroyed if government presses ahead with the project.
Following revelations on CNS earlier this week that government had contracted more consultants to make another review of the seabed – with implications that they were looking for a more favourable outcome — the tourism ministry confirmed the contract on Thursday with the release of a short official statement. Tourism minister Moses Kirkconnell said the survey was separate from the EIA.
“Given the critical nature and possible implications of this project, government has a responsibility to consider all of relevant facts and data that can be made available,” Kirkconnell said. “This information gathering exercise is separate and distinct from the Environmental Impact Assessment, the findings of which remain as presented by our consultants.”
CITA’s full statement readsdepart: “The Cayman Islands Tourism [CITA] cannot at this time support the current proposal to establish Cruise Berthing Facilities [CBF]. This position has been reached after careful review of the documentation available, individual CITA Sector meetings and a survey of our members where the majority of the respondents indicated that they did not support the current proposal. CITA has always maintained the position that our views on any proposal to develop CBF in the Cayman Islands would be informed by the results of the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA] and Outlined Business Case [OBC] and we applaud the government for making this process open and transparent.
“It should be noted that the deliberation on this matter has not been an easy one because the topic is extremely polarizing based on individual member business’ focus. CITA will share with Government the information we have learnt through our review of documentation of the current proposal for CBF and we would like to continue the discussions on how we can sustain a healthy cruise sector that is integral and beneficial to our tourism product.”
Category: development, Local News, Marine Environment, Science & Nature
My family and I make two trips a year to Cayman for Diving & fun, but my wife and I are very concerned about your proposed port project. We have dove all over the island for almost 20 years (over 500 dives) and we’ve witnessed the changes in coral and fish habitat without a cuise ship birth being developed. I can’t comprehend the destruction this will cause moving forward.
We know we’re only outside visitors, but we can make one decision: where to take our dive trips. I teach my family to advocate on ocean sustainability…my daughters can be more informative on this subject than any high school teacher here in the states, but we have agreed on one thing, if you build it – we won’t be back.
Our objective is to support those islands that put the environment first. Travelers can make decisions too.
And to those people here that will make cynical remarks on statement or tag me as troll, please remember one thing, your future (and your children’s future) is dependent on Cayman offering the same bounty it has offered for a long time. Your ocean & shore have made it a top overnight destination. Please consider this before playing with fire….
Yes, if you build the dock, Diving will end of Cayman as we know it because diver won’t have anywhere to dive, the 20M a year will vanish….
http://www.paulillsley.com/CaymanIslandsDiveSites/
Absolute nonsense
if you look at the link, the poster was sarcastic
Any dock proposal project should be put on hold & the money is allocated towards the airport upgrade. When that is complete, revisit the cruise berthing dock project.
The airport is far more important as it is the first image arriving tourists , non-permanent residents & other travelers, not to mention local citizens and residents see. Checking in to fly out on a weekend day at present is a fiasco at best , with delays , no room to accommodate the travelers, cramped departure gates, some temporary in construction. Inadequate dining and food choices.The airport staff by & large should be properly trained in customer service, as it is appalling. If they don’t meet criteria for the job , pack their bags and dismiss from the position , hire those than can meet the criteria & the expectations of the public. Facilities upgraded to jetways ( or ‘Jet Bridges’ as some refer to) to aid in the boarding & disembarking.In case the airports authority are unsure what a modern Caribbean airport should look like, just fly to Kingston or Barbados and take a look there.
Reality check, Airport was given green light already. Will be expanding shortly.
Folks, there’s three issues regarding the port/dock.
A) where to put what
B) is it worth it?
C) redevelopment of GT
A) To those honestly asking ‘is there an alternative’ the honest answer is no. Anywhere else, any other dock, would entail greater environmental damage.
B) But, the real issue is, as someone else points out, a 150 millions investment (if no overruns) for a 200 million return (best case) over 20 years is a bad investment. (Even if we had the money to waste.)
C) All of the reports point out that redeveloping GT (improving tourist product) is actually more important than the socks. So the obvious choice is to take the dock money, put it in to improving the tourist product in GT and get greater return for less cost. So anyone arguing to
After reading the article , and all the comments on this subject, I have to wonder if some people understand what the subject of the article is, and what they are reading to comment, or reply to. To see good comments get so many dislikes makes me wonder again if some people are reading and understanding what they are agreeing with or disagreeing with. I think that we should engage our brains before comment/speaking.
The manipulated thumbs ratings in this comment thread is all the evidence required to prove the pro-port lobby are grasping at straws.
Very entertaining to watch though.
Unna mussy tink Cayman people na hav no dyam sense!!
– Whodatis
no dog in this fight but happy to see the silent majority speaking up they maybe tired of the eco doomsdayers taking over
Again, good try – but no sale.
(You guys are just looking silly now.)
I find myself in agreement with Whodatis. Words I never thought I would type.
The doomsday video posted with this article might have some value if it wasn’t by someone who clearly has a conflict of interest. Find someone who is not the photographer in the hotel owned by the same wealthy guys that own the boat tenders that would lose their monopoly if the docks are built!!
Lose their monopoly? Wow! You’re grasping at straws, Anonymous 11;01.
Hadn’t thought about it before reading 11:01, but they are right. Those guys do have a monopoly at risk if the docks go in. Very interesting insight. Thanks.
So it’s a conflict of interest for her because of her LANDLORD’S business interests, so instead we should pay attention to the free-of-conflict opinions of the people who themselves own businesses downtown? Holy cow.
Dear Anonymous, I’m someone who is not invested in any business of any kind associated with the harbor and I concur with Cathy Church’s understanding of marine biology, the specific reefs and wrecks that lie in harm’s way and the enormous value that they have for our future. We can keep our cruise tourism without destroying these precious resources. In today’s dredging technology, there does not appear to be effective enough silt screens available to prevent the disaster that the EIA has clearly indicated (despite including use of every mitigation available) will occur to, at the very least, 6 sites of great economic and ecological value within and in the immediate vicinity of the dredge site. During operations, with ships in such shallow water near shore, our harbor’s clarity will be so degraded by the ships’ thrusters that glass bottom boat, snorkeling and diving will no longer be viable (despite mitigations that can help, but not eliminate it). We earn approx. $20M/yr from the harbor’s reefs just the way they are. Why toss it if there is a better way to keep the cruise ships? If any of this sounds wrong to you, please read the full EIA, then do at least 500 scuba dives on the Balboa, Cali, Soto’s Reefs and Eden Rock/Devil’s Grotto. You will not fail to agree with Cathy, regardless where she works. Sincerely, Courtney Platt
Thank you for your comments Mr. Platt. I have always admired yours and Mrs. Church’s photography.
The “coral reef” in the dredge footprint is minimal. EIA clearly states that GT has a coral cover of 20% on average (probably less in the project footprint but lets give you the benefit of the doubt). The neighboring sites can be saved with use of technology. It is not just about the silt screens, those are just one of the ways to reduce environmental impact. Also anyone that reads through the technical documents can clearly see how the simulations are no where near what the actual impact will be. Baird did an amazing job of identifying the threats if we should be careless. Lets work together and make sure no one is careless and we protect what makes GT so great. As you clearly stated above, you have no skin in the game. You are a master diver, but you have no experience with ship or port operations.
I am dismayed and very concerned about what has happened within the CITA and the survey they ‘conducted’ and which they say was used as a basis for their recent press release against the cruise and cargo port project. I do not believe that this CITA has adequately represented the concerns and views of the vast number of CITA Members that very much want to see the government go ahead with the cruise berthing and cargo facility as proposed, while government administers all possible mitigation techniques, to minimize any environmental damage.
It’s amazing how much internal lobbying has gone on in the past two months, by particular CITA members who now stand to lose financially(7+ million for tendering?) if a new cargo port and cruise dock is built. Four years ago, the CITA had another story to tell regarding a cruise port, because it understood that over 50% of our stay over tourist, first came here via a cruise. I wonder what happens to the stay over numbers if the cruise passengers stop coming? http://www.compasscayman.com/caycompass/2010/03/09/Row-develops-over-cruise-tourism-stats/
I challenge the CITA to publish the full set of survey results, by each Sector, and by the overall yes/no vote, especially showing the analysis of total numbers of Caymanians/Cayman Status holders, Permanent Residents, versus Work Permit holders, who voted “No” to cruise berthing; and all the survey respondents that voted “Yes” to cruise berthing, in each of the CITA Sectors.
To date the members don’t know what the true or real results were. It’s a shame that Caymanians has once again handed over another one of our vital associations to the control of those few with the money to ensure their ‘self interest’ are always represented.
You can study-shop this folly all you want, Minister Kirkconnell. The bottom line remains that going ahead with this gigantic infrastructure boondoggle to chase your weakest tourist customer base at the risk of alienating those of us who stay on island and spend thousands of dollars per visit is a very poor investment of public money for insufficient return.
On the contrary, I see it as an investment in GT to maintain the tourism in town. I live and work in town and if we lose any more cruise customers our jobs are at risk.
In my office we are hopeful that the investment and focus on the new docks will be part of an overall revitalisation of GT. It will be awesome if the day time cruise passengers help fund a downtown that would offer restaurants, events and parks that the GT residents could enjoy at night too.
For Christ Sakes, Anonymous 11:21, when several cruise ships are in port there isn’t room for the tourists or anyone else on the sidewalks. How are you going to add more? Get real!
GT Revitilisation, that’s the idea 🙂
They all seem to miss that point, I wonder if anyone pro-cruise pier has been to SMB or the Sand Bar when we have 5 ships in town? Where do you all think these tourists will go when there are 3 times as many people on our shores? There is no space for them as it is!
3 times as many? you have no clue or haven’t read any facts related to this. 1.8 million going to 2.3m is not 3 times.
When you refer to “our jobs” whose precisely are you referring to? Those of the sub minimum wage Hondurans, Indians, Filipinos and Jamaicans I am generally attended to in the shops catering to cruise ship passengers?
Revitalising GT is a GREAT idea, but we should do it FIRST so we can handle any increased capacity – heck, we can’t even handle the current capacity. Making downtown attractive to locals could also help smooth out any financial rough patches due to cruises giving us a miss during the construction period. And can we please fix the dump, too, so the first impression of Cayman is NOT that it stinks?
Let’s be honest, the Save Cayman group should be called the ‘Save our Tenders’ group.
Versus “Bankroll my Shops?” Please don’t try to pretend the tender operators are the only people with a financial interest in this, or that people without vested interests can fall on both sides.
The 7+ million a year going to the owners of the tenders is a MONOPOLY. That is the point.
What is so sad about all this is that it will effect so many Caymanians. The problem is that there will not be more divers coming. Cause of global warming climate change. But they won’t show a film about that. How many divers are on a boat ? How many boats per dive site? How many dive sites on just the west side of the island?
Ladies and gentlemen open your eyes . They took pictures and video of shipwrecks. Balboa 1932, Cali 1948. These ships can be moved. But they are not as interesting. They want newer shipwrecks like Kittiwake. The proof is when you drive by their dive shops and see it advertised.
Reef dives are all over the island. Wall dives are all over the island but the wall dive in GT is not important. Why don’t they want to protect 1200-1500 ft. of damaged coral that could recover if they just stopped anchoring there? Bias too much bias. A lot of people have come to this island because of first coming on a cruise ship. I have been a dive instructor and worked in hotels , over 40 years of working in the tourism industry dealing with cruise ships people. They don’t like the tenders. All they do is hold up people in the sun or rain.
Lets play the devil’s advocate and really believe that they are worried about the environment . Let their group suggest where the cruise facility should go? They don’t want it anywhere period.
Amen by brother Amen. I have been waiting weeks to hear someone call it straight. Just because they don’t want cruise does not mean the whole island has to suffer.
Your final statement is over the line.
I don’t want the proposed CBF but I am open to suggestions of alternative locations.
– Whodatis
You said all that to say that cruise people do not like tenders, because all they do is hold up people in the sun and rain?
I actually agree with some of that, but dude, there are much less expensive ways to address the sun and rain than a $150M white elephant dock. Have a look at some of my previous posts, you may find that you and I have more common ground than you think.
What will save these islands from this concrete craziness is that 1) no cruiseship co will put up 300m to build us a dock and 2) govt has no money to build it.
If by any chance a cruise co will agree to build the dock, their demands will be so ridiculous that our spineless politicians would never dare to accept it. These cruise lines only care about their pockets. For them to spend 300m they will require a massive return on investment. But why would they build here for 300m when they can build it for much less and get more return on investment by building it in Cuba.
The project concerned me even back in the days when Chuckie did his song and dance at St Ignatius years ago. Too much risk with too little reward. We now have the max number of cruise shippers that we can handle. Put a limit on cruise visitors so the experience can be good for everyone.
The “we need a pier” special interests need to get over it.
once again your comments section is being hacked by the pro dock people. 246 dislikes??? Ha! give me a break…..
that is unreal. Some poor intern has had a fun Friday for Kirks and PPM!
Mr. Kirkonnell I love you like a brother and support you in other endeavors, but I can’t go along with you on this operation. We don’t really need those docks. Think about it. In your heart, you know I’m right. Please don’t waste our money
The arrogance of the government on this issue is astounding, the only outcome of building a port is destruction and loss of the biggest attraction to our beautiful island. You cannot eat money. When we look at the facts, seeing other islands (Jamaica, Florida) have done this already, the damage is clearly shown, they lost reefs and in turn lost money from tourists that come to see the reefs and clear water. With silt being turned up the damage will only spread. No one supports this except for the people that only care for money.
What are you talking about? Jamaica’s water is not unclear due to any kind of over development, and what island do you call ‘Florida’?
Jamaican waters are very clear in some areas and not very clear in some areas, due to rivers and run-off from natural rainfall. In those areas, the water has always been seasonally clear and murky due to rainfall. It is a much larger and more complex environment than the Cayman Islands or any other tiny atoll or other carol island. You should not speak about what you do not know.
The only significant pollution of marine environment in Jamaica is Kingston Harbour, and that is not from dredging but industrial run-off. Earlier development which includes dredging took place decades ago in an adjoining part of the harbour in St. Catherine in what is now Portmore. Jamaica’s marine problems are related to over-exploitation of fish and coral. Not from over development.
I learned to swim in the crystal clear waters of Morgan’s Harbour right before Port Royal and across from Kingston Harbour. Today those same waters appear part of a cess pool. Pray tell me what new river has sprung up in the area to so change the water quality?
I would be very surprising if two sets of competent and honest marine ecologists returned radically differing results of a survey of the bottomof GTH.
If they do come up with different results, one of them is incompetent or dishonest!
or just being paid by different factions
Yep. In that case, we know one is dishonest!
The truth is the EIA already says in its technical documents that the average cover of coral in George Town harbour is 20%, so only 20% of that 15 acres is actually coral anyway. They probably didn’t need specialists again.
Good news.
If push comes to shove and the powers that be decide to push ahead with the proposed CBF’s in the face of the clear opposition of the masses – then we Caymanians will simply join arms along the waterfront as we did a while back in East End!
(Our precious marine ecosystem and pristine SMB trumps the sale of some privately-owned rum cakes, t-shirts, and silver earrings on any given day.)
Dear CIG, it is a new day. Caymanians are awake. Please act accordingly.
Regards,
– Whodatis
My family has visited your island many times now. Turning it into yet another stop for the mega ships will destroy Eden Rock and Hamburger reef, and will basically ruin what many of us love about your home.
Thank you for adding your voice Mike M.!
We need and welcome all input from visitors like you – because when we locals object we are slandered as “standing in the way of progress”.
Please continue to pay attention to this issue and be sure to spread the word.
Many thanks,
– Whodatis
Whats next the pictures and videos of dying fishes because they are confused and can’t figure out how to swim around the dock?
C.I.T.A. has always been the hotel’s baby. this was inevitable. Ask the Chamber for an opinion. Back from years ago ms bergstrom used to talk out against cruise. no surprise here, just confirmation of years of hotel only opinion.
Dear PPM and Moses K
If CITA are not pushing for this project and do not support it how can the PPM and its special interest groups of financiers and supporters like the GT retailers, Kirkonnells, Hamaty, Thompsons be allowed to mortgage our future and destroy the marine ecosystem when tourism stakeholders do not support it?
The arrogance of this PPM government and its failure to present a compelling argument to justify this cruise berthing project is astonishing and disgraceful! We should not have to pay for an expensive mistake in order for Alden and Moses to repay political support of their friends and family. The message should now be loud and clear the cruise berthing proposal is not necessary at this time.
What is not being voiced is how much money is being spent by the special interest proponents from the save Cayman side. Those funding the majority of this push, are really just protecting their financial interest, ie the tendering company. This is happening while Cayman slowly dies in the future from the lack of an upgrade cargo port, meanwhile the 7 Cuban ports continue to draw away what little cruise tourist we still have, who are forced to 3 hours of their stay in Cayman, waiting to get on and get off a tender.
Spearman you are not telling the truth.
This looks like one of many write-ups by the people who will profit greatly if the berths are built. Say, fellows….. how do you get those multiple “Likes” to keep repeating themselves?
All we need now is for people like Cousteau and his pals to jump into the ring and start publishing their thoughts in International dive magazines,
Couldn’t agree more. This is utter none sense eco hysteria
Dudes, that video is like the Apocalypse! gimme a break
Floating dock, save money, save time, prevent over runs on expenditure and time waiting for a conventional dock to be built. Contract with the Scandinavians to pre fabricate a floating dock with which they have vast experience . No special interests, no meddling politicians, no corruption like in school construction etc. No damage to coral reefs, no potential damage to 7mb,- only problem, no monetary backhanders to the powers that be. Amen.
Best thing is that if the cruise ships ever stop comming we can sell it!
absolutely correct…..
Honestly, this isn’t really even news. CITA has been against the cruise industry for decades. The majority of CITA is stayover based and will always view the cruise sector as a nuisance.
Which is quite correct. The real money and sustainable business comes from the stayover market. The cruise lines have no investment in the Cayman Islands or any long term commitment here. They simply want to take what they can and when the profits stop flowing they will move on to somewhere else.
Caymanians that depend on the cruise passengers to fill taxis, buy food, go to stingray city, etc consider that ‘real money’. It feeds their families. They need the cruise tourists, and want the new piers.
And by the way — the government makes millions on the head tax for every cruise passenger, and money for every one that goes to the Turtle Farm that employs Caymanians. If that declines we ALL lose.
I hope the wealthy few making millions a year on the tenders to bring the cruise passengers ashore aren’t able to stop this project that the rest of us need! We aren’t living the high life like the CMS owners are!
You aren’t going to be living any kind of life based on cruiser dollars once Cuba opens up.
2:27 that’s exactly kind of short-sighted attitude that lets the cruise lines exploit destinations like Grand Cayman and get away with it. Ask any of the watersports operators who are getting ripped off by them how tight their margins are and why they all have to employ ex-pats on minimum wage to make ends meet.
This is about spending $150 million+ of your money in the hope of making maybe $200 million over 20 years – you’d get a better return in a casino. Don’t you realise that if CIG get this wrong in a few years time you will have no money coming in?
As for the Turtle Farm? It would make more economic sense for CIG to give every one of the current Caymanian employees a $500K redundancy payment then sell the site for development than for them to carry on milking the cruise arrival revenue to keep it open.
I’ve always considered the cruise business a nuisance! But then, I don’t like crowds.
I say, Mister Anonymous 10:08. The cruise sector IS a nuisance!
but ppm and the kirkconnells say yes….
So shall it be written; so shall it be done.
Too many AGENDAS, obviously many person’s NO position is NOT based on the EIA report. Some are not even concerned about the environment or the less fortunate in the Cayman Islands. It’s all about their business(es) in the current poor port facility situation.