This is the third in a series of articles on the proposed development in the South Basin at Dockyard and why the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce has prolonged its objection to the lack of proper impact assessment. In this instalment, BEST sets out the prime consequences of inadequate environmental impact assessment (EIA) on this project: consequences to Bermuda, its environment and reputation, and to the legacy of the 2017 America’s Cup.

Flawed EIAs can cost money

Environmental impact assessments are important and imperative planning tools for large development projects. In acknowledgment of this, the British and Bermuda governments signed an agreement in 2001, the Environment Charter, which requires an EIA for significant projects and/or those that are likely to have a lasting impact. ¹ When an EIA is to be done, however, it must meet a standard that is not inferior. A flawed EIA can have consequences, even economic ones.

As an example, when the Dockyard piers were being built, an estimated $3.7 million cost incurred to protect pregnant dolphins at the nearby DolphinQuest facility could have been avoided had a credible environmental impact exercise been conducted. A simple adjustment in the timing of the artificial insemination schedule for the dolphins would have made that cost unnecessary.²

Consequences of a poorly done EIA

The original assessment submitted for the South Basin project suffered from “inadequacies” and “critical shortcomings” that should warn us of negative consequences to:

1, The environment

2, The economy

3, Bermuda’s reputation

4, The legacy of the 2017 America’s Cup

1, The environmental consequences that are known are severe, including loss of 11 acres of marine biosphere (protected species habitat and nursery function). The unknown consequences are doubly severe, including the likely effect of the operational by-products and practices of proposed industrial boatyard activity that will be encroaching on to adjacent pristine ocean zones. Without knowing those consequences, we do not know what’s involved in avoiding them or even if they are avoidable.

2, There are also known and unknown economic consequences. We know from previous studies (available at www.best.org.bm) that there is a quantifiable, economic value of Bermuda’s reefs³. However, while the developers have referred to untold economic gain from the project, they have not mentioned nor attempted to assess the reduced value from the loss of the reefs to the fishing industry, tourism, divers or boaters, for example.

3, Bermuda’s reputation with the America’s Cup is on the line. Bermuda’s AC35 negotiators were assured, as we understand it, that all was in order for a viewing platform and “Event Village” for America’s Cup functions. As BEST has been demonstrating, not only are there many aspects of the South Basin proposal that were poorly thought out and executed and far from ready, owing of the prestige of the event and the already compressed timetable, there is enormous pressure for short-cuts leading to shortfalls. Not only is the Island’s reputation on the global stage in jeopardy, but our leaders are risking loss of credibility with locals from the potential of damage to Bermuda’s image and environment.

4, A fourth unintended consequence is the potential damage to the reputation of the America’s Cup as an institution. This is a sensitive topic. We know the America’s Cup leaders are proud of having achieved a carbon-neutral footprint at AC34 in San Francisco. That 2013 event also attained platinum status as a Clean Ocean Regatta. But Bermuda is much smaller than San Francisco, so any impact will be larger; and Bermuda’s environment is more fragile, yet less stringently protected than San Francisco’s. The local impact study that was supposed to gauge the effect of the post-America’s Cup development is critically short-changed and inadequate, potentially setting up AC35’s legacy for disappointment.

After the America’s Cup has gone ...

There’s little doubt that the Event Village itself will be well run and then dismantled once AC35 events are all done. But the facts are that the landfill was not there before AC35, and the landfill will be there — and will remain — after the America’s Cup has packed up its tents and moved on.

An industrial accident could mar the America’s Cup legacy in Bermuda

Also, the end uses of the site are still unresolved. While there is a need for a marine training facility, cultural centre or youth sports amenity, these have all been mentioned but none has been applied for. Instead, what has been applied for is a commercial boatyard, a combined Marine & Ports offices and operations (ferry and tugboat storage, and maintenance) and a luxury marina. (We note that in a revised appeal decision [disputed], the minister responsible for planning has rescinded approval for the marina; the rest are still part of the end-use plans.)¹¹ All these are essentially industrial activities that will be mounted on newly created waterfront property in threatening proximity to one of Bermuda’s most pristine and productive marine ecosystems.

All it will take is one industrial accident on the site for the productivity of the waters adjacent to the landfill to be drastically damaged or wiped out. Leakages over time of chemicals or fuels could have the same effect. Even though that damage may not take place until after AC35 is over, it may inevitably be linked to the legacy and reputation of the America’s Cup.

Act now beats react later

It would seem to us that it is in the interest of the America’s Cup Event Authority to do whatever it can now to help to ensure that what is left behind when it departs Bermuda tells nothing but a good story. In our view, it needs to act now to avoid unintended consequences. As a start, it needs assurance itself that the impact assessment affecting every aspect of its legacy is stringent and first-class.

In the next instalment, we will explore possible solutions and the opportunities missed along the way

¹ United Kingdom Overseas Territories Environment Programme (OTEP), Bermuda Environment Charter, September 26, 2001.

² The Royal Gazette, “BEST claims pier project haste cost taxpayers millions of wasted dollars” — January 26, 2011; and “BEST: Assess the environmental impact on projects properly” — January 26, 2011.

³ DCS, “Economic Value of Bermuda’s Coral Reefs” — December 2010; and Pieter van Beukering, Samia Sarkis et al, “Bermuda’s balancing act: The economic dependence of cruise and air tourism on healthy coral reefs”.

¹¹ The Royal Gazette, “Fahy revises decision on South Basin” — September 10, 2015.