---

About a month ago I wrote about the potential impact of the new breed of giant cruise ships and the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Last week, Larry Jacobs, the government’s point man for its cruise ship plans, wrote what was termed a response to my article. I will not label Mr. Jacobs personally, but his actual responses amount to little more than spin.

As an example, Mr. Jacobs writes, “Mr. Hayward stated that cruise lines do not promote the ports.” He then goes on to offer as evidence-to-the-contrary, “the ships are required to have literature on board that promotes Bermuda.” What I actually wrote was that “[the cruise ships] do everything to promote the ship, not the port-of-call, as the attraction.” That is, they treat the ship itself as the destination — they advertise all the ships’ features, programmes, facilities, activities, luxuries, specialties, schedules, benefits, ad nauseum. These are touted in the print and broadcast advertisements and brochures, and form the content of the sometimes-hourly loudspeaker announcements. There is just no plausible way that even racks full of ‘literature’ about Bermuda could be considered a comparable promotion.

While nit-picking about promotional literature, Mr. Jacobs chose not to deal with the core theme of my article, that the Bermuda Government is obligated, by its being a signatory to the Environment Charter, to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). I can’t fault all the ports studies, marine swell studies and computer simulations Mr. Jacobs mentions — they all sound great and are undoubtedly useful. However, they are all looking at pieces of the puzzle. And while that is important, an overall view is imperative.

The complex interweaving of infrastructural issues (taxis and docks), land environmental issues (toilets, trash), marine environmental issues (human wastes and trash; toxic ship-bottom paints, fuel, oil and other toxic wastes; sedimentation effects on corals and sea grass beds) and social/cultural issues (safety against crime, shopkeeper overload) require comprehensive study. However, not only is the government apparently avoiding an overall assessment, it seems to be deliberately pursuing a fragmented approach to cruise ships.

Tourism Minister Brown has been saying, for example, that the ports of Hamilton and St. George have to make up their minds about whether or not they want to have cruise ships. In effect he is saying that they will decide their cruise ship policy. While input from the ports is vital, ports should not be deciding policy.

Such a fragmented approach is irresponsible and dangerous. How can a single port assess the overall damage that might occur if one, or two, or all ports want oversized ships? That’s like asking the proverbial blind men to tell about an elephant if one of them touches only the trunk, one the tail and one a leg. It is the government that should be weighing up the overall impact of cruise ship arrivals.

And in truth, how can any port leaders possibly make a rational decision until they know the full ramifications — environmental, social, cultural and economic — of their choice? Without an EIA, they lack information crucial to their decision.

The government is ‘cherry-picking’ its studies, its consultations, its public pronouncements and even its policy components. This is in violation of the Environment Charter it signed on to. Minister Brown should state publicly and clearly that the government will honour its commitments to the Environment Charter and, as is required, will fully consult with and engage ALL stakeholders, contract for a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment, and keep the public fully informed. Anything less only arouses and confirms suspicions.[[In-content Ad]]

---