Letter to the Editor

Open letter to Hon. W. McKeeva Bush, Minister of Tourism, Environment, Development, and Commerce

Monday, August 2, 2004

Dear Sir,

The Marine Conservation Board is vehemently opposed to the proposed dredging of a major channel running from the main channel of the North Sound to its western shore opposite the Dart development. A history of similar proposals suggests that, eventually, the channel would branch to the north and south along the shoreline, creating an inter-coastal waterway which would link existing dredge pits from Botabano to North Sound Estates. This waterway would then border approximately two thirds of the entire shoreline of the sound.

The much touted philosophy of balancing development with environmental protection clearly falls apart here. The recent passage of badly needed laws to conserve our fisheries, and the implementation of an environmentally sound management plan to protect the Sandbar area, is indeed praiseworthy.

However, comparing these to the proposed dredging of a channel of this magnitude in the North Sound represents a highly imbalanced environmental tradeoff in favor of the latter. There is a certain glaring hypocrisy in penalising a person for contravening the marine conservation laws when they illegally take lobster, conch or fish, while approving of the wholesale destruction of extensive swaths of critical habitat for these same resources.

Our concern goes far beyond this however, as such a channel may have permanent and profound adverse effects on the environment of the North Sound and the economy alike.

From the published list of the committee charged with reviewing the proposal, it is evident that it is largely constituted of individuals which have vested interests in such a channel, namely developers catering to wealthy clientele who may have large vessels requiring deepwater facilities.

While the channel would benefit these nearby major developments for obvious reasons, it will not in our view be of overall long term benefit to Cayman.

Indeed, it poses a real threat to the environment of the sound, and the many Caymanians whose lively-hood depend on it.

The North Wall, Stingray City, Sandbar, Coral Gardens, Rum Point, and a host of other features such as the many shallow bars and sea grass flats (which support a local recreational fishing tourism market) has provided the North Sound with its own distinct economic base.

Of particular concern is the extremely valuable Sandbar. While the configuration of this feature may flux with sporadic weather events, the pattern of currents which keep the Sand Bar in place is maintained by a very specific balance.

Any alteration to this balance in the form of increased water volume, change in speed or direction of water flow, or trapping of sand (all of which the proposed channel may cause) will put the Sand Bar at risk of being permanently lost.

Also of great concern is the amount of sedimentation which the popular North Wall dive sites will inevitably suffer both during and after the project.

One alleged environmental benefit is that the channel would reduce sedimentation of the North Sound, as boats whose prop wash now stir up, silt would not do the same if they had a deeper channel to transit.

This will simply not be the case for the following reasons: the first is that boats distantly located from the inner end of the channel will not go out of their way to access this point simply to exit the North Sound.

Furthermore, as the proposed channel does not lead to four of the five most popular destinations, boats will simply traverse the sound in a straight line as the economy of time and fuel dictates.

Would it be fair, practical, or even possible to force boats to comply in using the channel?

Secondly, if the size boats currently in the sound now stir up silt, so too will proportionally larger boats, albeit using a proportionally deeper channel. To avoid this, the channel would have to be far deeper than the proposed depth 16 ft.

It is a simple fact that dredging produces large quantities of silt, much of which is destined to remain in the marine environment despite the so called ‘sweeping’ method of using suction pipes to ‘clean up’ the dredged area.

One only need look at the silt left behind from previous dredged areas to know that this is highly ineffective. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that any technology can contain the amount of silt generated from such a large scale dredging project.

Since dredging inevitably produces large quantities of silt which cannot be removed, it is ludicrous to suggest, by any explanation, that more dredging will result in less silt in the marine environment. The fact that dredging is immediately and chronically lethal to marine environments has been well documented repeatedly, and without exception.

It should be emphasized that the above mentioned likely effects of such a channel to the Sand Bar, and North Sound in general, if realised, will be permanent. They are irreversible, and no attempt at mitigation can be successful.

Is the benefit of convenience of such a channel to a few really worth risking the loss of economic and intrinsic benefits to so many others?

Sadly, our history of environmental studies/assessments on major issues such as this has always resulted in either of two outcomes: 1)Those whose findings are favorable to the special interests initiating the proposals, and are accepted and acted on, and, 2) Those whose findings are not favorable to the special interests, and are shelved and not acted on, at the expense of the common good.

One of the main strategies of the Vision 2008 National Strategic Plan was “…to protect our natural environment, particularly the Central mangrove and other wetlands, the North Sound and coral reefs, from further degradation”.

This included formally declaring the North Sound and its remaining mangroves an area of national importance, and placing it on a national registry of environmentally protected areas. The final report on the plan also stated that “.. there are a number of issues in which the expressed desires of the people of the Cayman Islands are aligned with the objectives outlined in the recent UK White Paper on Overseas Territories”, the second on this list being the protection of our fragile ecosystem. Surely the North Sound should be a priority here.

The 2002 CH2MHill Study on the Provision of Construction Aggregate and Fill for the Cayman Islands, on which we spent almost half a million dollars, also concluded that there should be no more major dredging in the North Sound.

The Ten Year Tourism Development Plan (another exercise involving a broad cross section of Caymanians) as well as the more recent Tourism Development Plan (a consultancy costing us many more thousands of dollars) also underscored the critical need to protect our marine environment.

It is time we stop playing chess with our limited marine environment which cannot be replaced if destroyed. It has a limited physical and functional capacity, and its living resources are finite. We must accept the fact that it cannot accommodate everything everyone may wish for.

The reputation and quality of the islands tourism industry to a large extent depends on the integrity of the North Sound.

While money and time have become the common denominators in our lives by which we measure things, there are things which nature provides that cannot be measured in this way.

These are things such as a leisurely day at the Sandbar with friends or family, a peaceful day of snorkeling or fishing in our clear, clean waters, and the health of a natural resource such as our fisheries. These are things which have a value far beyond just the expense of a visit, or a receipt of a day’s pay: a value that cannot be expressed in mere dollars.

The North Sound (and our environment in general) is one of those things. Its value to the people of this country is beyond dollars and cents. It is our history and it is our future. Its value is the same as the value of the environment which supports us, and the value of our children’s children.

However one looks at the North Sound and other such natural resources, in dollars or intrinsic value, they are so important to the present and future of so many people, that they must be protected and preserved. This single truth should override all else.

Should then this national resource upon which so many of us depend be jeopardized for the sake of a few wealthy developers and short term employment for a few Caymanians? We believe a public poll would result in a resounding no.

The Cayman Islands are now one of the few locations in the Caribbean region which still has its marine resources relatively intact. This did not happen by accident. It is a result of the common sense knowledge of our dependency on the sea which has been passed down through generations.

It is time that we stop selling our birthright to those with enough money or other influence to acquire the right to destroy them to their financial benefit.

In conclusion we would appeal to Government, and people of the Cayman Islands alike, to refrain from allowing this channel to be dredged, and to adopt the environmentally sound advice of the various exercises, studies, and consultancies on which we have spent incredible amounts of money, and which has repeatedly resulted in the same urgent message, that our environment is invaluable to us.

Don Foster , Chairman
The Marine Conservation Board

Back...

Click here for reader comments...