Cruise Ships and Sustainability in Bermuda: a Preliminary Evaluation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CRUISE SHIPS AND SUSTAINABILITY IN BERMUDA: A PRELIMINARY EVALUATION Final Draft | May 2006 prepared for: The Bermuda National Trust prepared by: Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 USA in conjunction with: Dr. Andrew R. G. Price Department of Biological Sciences University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL UK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: We appreciate the opportunity provided by the Bermuda National Trust (BNT) to participate in the discussion of cruise ship and sustainability issues in Bermuda. In particular, we thank Steve Conway, Dorcas Roberts, Bill Holmes, Jennifer Gray and others at the BNT for their assistance on and off-island, as well as Patsy Phillips for tolerating our presence in her home. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Background 1-1 1.2 Approach 1-1 1.3 The Environment as an Integral Part of Decision Making 1-2 1.3.1 What is at stake: Bermuda’s natural systems? 1-2 1.3.2 Lessons from elsewhere 1-5 1.3.3 Other considerations 1-6 CHAPTER 2 BERMUDA CRUISE SHIP MARKET CONSIDERATIONS 2-1 2.1 Preliminary Findings 2-1 2.2 Characteristics of Cruise Ships Currently Calling on Bermuda 2-3 2.3 Additional Market Factors 2-5 2.3.1 Geography 2-5 2.3.2 Cruise Ship New Builds vs. Refurbishment 2-6 2.3.3 Current Size Limitations for Cruise Ships Calling on Bermuda 2-7 2.3.4 Luxury and Niche Cruise Lines 2-7 CHAPTER 3 RISKS FROM POTENTIAL PORT MODIFICATIONS, CRUISE SHIPS AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES TO SENSITIVE MARINE ENVIRONMENTS 3-1 3.1 Environmental Issues and Risks 3-1 3.2 Major Environmental Impacts 3-1 3.2.1 Coastal infilling for ports and other infrastructures 3-2 3.2.2 Dredging and sedimentation 3-3 3.2.3 Sewage pollution 3-3 3.2.4 Ship-groundings 3-4 3.2.5 Other threats 3-5 3.3 Identifying Tradeoffs Linked to Alternative Cruise Ship Options 3-5 3.3.1 Ports and cruise ships 3-5 3.3.2 Navigational channels and cruise ship movements 3-6 3.3.3 Tourist transport within Bermuda 3-6 CHAPTER 4 CRUISE SHIPS AND “CARRYING CAPACITY” 4-1 4.1 “Carrying Capacity” 4-1 4.2 Additional Research Needs 4-2 CHAPTER 5 NEXT STEPS 5-1 5.1 Planning Issues and Process in Bermuda 5-1 5.2 Additional Research Needs 5-1 REFERENCES R-1 ANNEX 1: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT (ICM) CYCLE AND STAGES A-1 CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 1.1 BACKGROUND In January 2006, Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) entered into a contract with the Bermuda National Trust (BNT) to review recent conceptual plans involving potential modifications to Bermuda's ports, harbors, and/or channels for (at least in part for cruise ship accommodation purposes) and provide a preliminary, independent assessment of cruise ship market assumptions, key environmental issues and potential implications for Bermuda's "carrying capacity." This report is the deliverable for that contract. We view this document as a preliminary evaluation intended to: a) provide an overview of key environmental and carrying-capacity issues raised by various development concepts for Bermuda's ports; b) promote stakeholder discussion of such issues early in the development process; c) identify areas in need of additional study; and d) ultimately, improve decision-making by providing stakeholders with a fuller accounting of potential costs and benefits associated with development concepts under consideration. This report is not a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the numerous port concepts that have been identified to date or a full evaluation of all potential impacts that might arise from such actions; additional information and analysis would be required to conduct such tasks. 1.2 APPROACH To inform this preliminary evaluation, we obtained and conducted an initial review of relevant information from a variety of sources, including professional technical literature, documents produced by or for Bermuda government agencies related to the cruise industry in Bermuda (including the 2005 Cruise Ports Master Plan Update), documents related to the cruise industry and Bermuda's natural environment produced by the BNT and other non-governmental entities and individuals, and information obtained from internet and other electronic searches. In addition to the document and information review, Mr. Michael Donlan (IEc) and Dr. Andrew Price (consultant to IEc) visited Bermuda from 5 February to 9 February 2006 and participated in meetings with representatives of several stakeholder groups, including: the Bermuda National Trust; the Corporation of St. George's; the West End Development Corporation; the Corporation of Hamilton; the Ministry of Tourism and Transport (including the Department of Marine and Ports); the Ministry of the Environment Department of Conservation Services; the Bermuda Biological Station for Research; Mr. Thad Murdoch (principle investigator for the Bermuda Reef Ecosystem Assessment and Mapping Initiative); Dr. Samia Sarkis (consultant to Ministry of the 1-1 Environment Department of Conservation Services); and Mr. Michael Phillips (tour boat operator). During the site visit, Dr. Price and Mr. Donlan also visited several locations in Bermuda (including St. George's, Dockyard, and Hamilton) and were provided boat-based tours of the channels leading into these ports. The remainder of this chapter provides background information underscoring the importance of early, full integration of environmental considerations into planning processes. Chapter 2 provides information and preliminary discussion of several issues related to Bermuda's cruise ship market. Chapter 3 identifies key risks from port modifications, cruise ships and associated activities to sensitive marine ecosystems. Chapter 4 discusses potential issues and implications associated with Bermuda's "carrying capacity." Chapter 5 identifies potential next steps and additional research needs. 1.3 THE ENVIRONMENT AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF DECISION-MAKING 1.3.1 WHAT IS AT STAKE: BERMUDA’S NATURAL SYSTEMS? On 5 September, 2003 Hurricane Fabian, the worst storm to hit Bermuda in half a century, battered the island and damaged the airport causeway. This highlighted the power of natural events and the importance of the environment in providing natural defence. For this and many other reasons outlined in this report the environment should be an important factor in stakeholder decisions about different port development alternatives. The decision affects far more than the size of ships allowed into Bermuda and where they go. It is also about far more than the amount of money spent in Bermuda by visitors. Critical to all stakeholders is understanding what various cruise ship options mean for the diverse services provided by Bermuda’s natural environment; enjoyment of its beauty and recreational opportunities; the protections it offers; and the ability of Bermudian people to move around the island. The degree to which port development options affect the coast also matters in other ways, for a physically hazardous environment is less conducive to international business and investment than a physically secure one. Also at stake is the environmental legacy left by port development and the potential expansion of the cruise ship industry for future generations of Bermudians. Environmental implications can vary among cruise ship alternatives. This applies not only to ships, ports and supporting shore facilities, but also activities needed for navigation and safe passage (e.g. widening of channels and dredging) and passenger transport once cruise ships have arrived. Impacts can be substantial and long-lived. Following the grounding of the cruise ship ‘Mari Boeing’ off Bermuda in 1978, for 1-2 example, few corals survived the accident.1 Moreover, long-term monitoring of the grounding scar has shown reef recovery to take around 100 years (Anderson et al., 2001). There is now growing realisation that integrating environmental issues into the development planning process is more effective than treating the environment as a separate sector and/or issue to be addressed after critical planning decisions have been made.2 The following sections highlight the importance of some of Bermuda’s major coastal and marine ecosystems, all of which could potentially be affected (positively or negatively) by different cruise ship alternatives. These sections are not intended to exhaustively document all potential resource impacts, but provide general background context. (a) Coral reefs Coral reefs are best known for the biodiversity and fishery resources they generate. They function as solar-powered (photosynthetic) coastal food factories. Although Bermuda’s reefs are marginal, they do support grouper and snapper fisheries; the pot fishing industry alone was valued at $2 million annually in 1990 (Bryant et al., 1998).3 Besides their biological services, reefs provide natural physical protection. In physical terms, for example, an extensive reef (like Bermuda's outer reef system) acts as a ‘self-repairing’ breakwater. Although robust against minor and even moderate disturbances, recovery of reefs from ship groundings, hurricanes and other major mechanical damage can take decades. Impacts from siltation, sewage and other contaminants (Jones, 2005) may seem less serious yet these stressors can, paradoxically, be more harmful to coral reefs. Of real concern is when reefs switch from a living, renewable resource to a physical non- renewable one, i.e. bare substrate. Without accretion from calcification by corals, sooner or later the reefs will begin to erode and loose their natural defence capacity. (b) Other critical habitats Mangroves are another critical marine habitat in Bermuda. Like coral reefs, they are the most northerly example in the world, and both have relatively low species diversity. Only the Red and Black Mangroves are represented. Mangrove habitat is important as a nursery for juvenile reef fish, as well as several bird species (Anderson et al., 2001). It is 1 See website: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:AP3PhtwSXFUJ:www.bbsr.edu/currents_fall01.pdf+mari+b oeing+grounding&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2 2 EIAs, for example, are often made after a development option has been decided upon – essentially as a ‘damage limitation’ exercise.