[ad_1]
(CNS): At the first of two public meetings on various options for a new cargo terminal on Grand Cayman, it became clear that many members of the public in attendance disagreed with the government representatives and consultants who proposed the options, arguing that a new terminal is necessary.
The rationale for building the new terminal is that the island’s population will continue to grow for at least the next 50 years. The consultants used population projections calculated by the National Roads Administration, which assumed an annual population growth rate of 2% to 250,000 people by 2074, which is considered a stable period.
Yet the numbers frustrated many attendees, who applauded those who took the microphone to question how the island could cope with so many people in its current demographic woes, and questioned environmental damage based on assumptions that could be wrong.
“Population is the key to the problem,” Brecks resident Dr. Virginia Hobday told the group. “You better think about the roads, you better think about the schools before you start thinking about the port, you better think about a lot of things before you say we’re going to put 250,000 people here.”
She said her house overlooks the “pristine” Peace Bay and she was “deeply saddened” to think it might be destroyed.
“I would just ask you to really think about this… You can decide that you want to have a population of 250,000. You can control that population if you want. So you don’t really have to design for it, even if you have tourism.”
Hobday continued: “You need to step back and look at the rest of your infrastructure and stop destroying natural habitats. The ocean there has been so badly affected that it will never recover and it will never be the same. So don’t destroy a new place. Try to build on what you’ve got… Have a serious conversation about population growth and infrastructure over the next five years.”
Nicholas Foster, a young Cayman Islands fishing guide, spoke of the three options (options 8, 9 and 10) that consultants were studying in the Breakers area. “What you call ‘reclamation’ — that’s the barrier reef,” he said. Noting the rich marine life there, he said building a dock in that area was “a very bad idea.”
He said it would not only affect wildlife there, but would also damage the south coast and endanger the Great Barrier Reef. “These people might not be concerned,” he said, pointing at Tourism and Ports Minister Kenneth Bryan, “but 50 per cent of my trips are done there.”
“We talk as if we can’t limit population growth,” said Courtney Platt, a renowned photographer and environmental advocate. “To me, the most important thing we should do before we even consider this type of infrastructure expansion is to keep population growth in step with infrastructure development. That, to me, is really the main problem with all of our predicaments.”
Pratt, who has opposed building a cruise terminal at Georgetown Harbour, said expanding the existing terminal there would be “far less environmentally damaging than going forward with this plan on the South Coast, which would be a huge environmental disaster for us”.
He said the coral reefs around the Cayman Islands have been overfished and urgently need to be restored so that Caymanians can continue to fish. “Maybe one day ‘things’ will get so bad that cargoes stop coming in for some reason … we need a strategic food reserve.”
Peter Schmid also questioned the assumption of population growth. He said the Cayman Islands economy would have to change for the population to continue to grow as the consultants suggest. He believes the local tourism product is limited and it is difficult to imagine the economy here can sustain 250,000 people.
One young Caymanian said she was concerned about the state of democracy in the Cayman Islands and asked for an extension to the consultation period and survey deadline. She also suggested they conduct focus groups, especially with youth activists and young Caymanians.
Citing a report by regional economist Marla Dukharan, she said tourism contributed relatively little to Cayman’s economy and “we have to have foresight and planning for the future, but also understand the data and the economics” before making decisions that “will have knock-on effects for generations to come.”
Sam Story, a partner at KPMG and one of the panelists, explained that consultants used a high estimate of population numbers to ensure that the terminal, when completed, would be able to cope with the number of people there and the volume of cargo that would need to be handled.
“We can’t predict population numbers,” he said, noting that unknown economic and political factors will influence the situation.
Minister Bryan appeared to agree with the “demographic concerns” expressed at the conference when he addressed the issue. “Most people know where I stand on immigration reform,” he said. But he insisted that regardless of population growth, the tonnage of imported goods would increase due to tourism.
Bryan said the current population is 82,000 (a figure many dispute), and openly asked Harold Westerman of engineering consultancy Stantec when existing freight facilities would reach capacity.
“The current port can barely accommodate more people,” Westerman said. However, their short-term plans for handling cargo, which include widening the existing port’s South Dock and “some adjustments and reconfigurations of the CDC,” are designed to handle cargo through 2039. Based on their estimates of population growth, that number would be 133,000 people.
Beyond that, “you can make a lot of small improvements,” such as expanding the CDC and the port, but he said that would not be enough to meet the projected growth. However, he floated the idea that the port could be built in phases. The navigation channel and turning basin (which would cause major environmental damage) would have to be built, he said, but only two-thirds of the terminal could be built initially, with expansion to be done “later.”
So if population growth is lower than expected, the port’s lifespan could extend well beyond 2084, he said. However, that would do nothing to address the environmental damage and quality of life concerns raised.
In his keynote address at the conference, Westermann explained that the entire process of planning and building the terminal will take 10 to 15 years, but will then continue for at least another 50 years. While the new terminal is being built, they are also proposing to expand and improve the existing facilities.
[ad_2]
Source link
