Dear Sir,

Having attended all three public meetings, listened to a variety of people, and spent time looking at data and research, I have concluded that we should stop the Bermuda Ocean Prosperity Programme!

The basic idea of using our marine environment to make money while protecting it makes sense. However, it is the areas they have put forward for closure where the challenge lies. These reefs and bays are not being damaged by those who fish. This is clearly evidenced by areas such as Coot Pond, Shelly Bay and others appearing no different to other areas despite being closed to fishing for more than 20 years. These areas are being damaged by turtles, pesticides, run-off, shoreline development, boat moorings, the airport dump and larger vessels such as cruise ships, fuel tankers and the Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences’ ocean-going vessel. Nowhere does the proposed plan address these issues, but it does mention most of them. The only people being held accountable are those who fish, but no real proof of any damage they cause to the environment is evident. This is despite the common use of the phrase “evidenced-based decision-making”.

The plan also puts forward the need for investment in our marine environment. There is talk of 18 potential possibilities so far, but only renewable energy — wind and tide — aquaculture, deep-sea pelagic fishing and coral farming have been mentioned. Each of these would likely require millions of dollars to set up. They would need to be regulated, managed and enforced — three areas it seems that are presenting a challenge now.

There is also the possibility of reef damage from wind turbines and that the deep-sea fishing could result in the depletion of our pelagic fish stocks. When you look at the other countries the Waitt Institute supports through the “Blue Prosperity Leaders Forum”, they seem to be looking to conserve areas offshore rather than inshore. Home affairs minister Walter Roban is the chairman of that group, so he may be able to provide more detail as to where they are placing their “ocean emphasis”. One other area that has been talked about is the possibility that this plan is a way to open our offshore areas for mining. This could relate to the plan produced by the Environmental Law Institute in 2016. It should be remembered that the mining will produce sediment in the water that would severely impact our coral reefs.

In summary, without evidence or financial details, this plan needs to stop. If it is felt necessary, it could go back to the drawing board and be put forward again using real evidence, data and costing. One consideration could be to open more areas closer to shore to spread out ocean use, and close much more than 20 per cent of our ocean in the deeper waters. This would “avoid user conflict”, another popular term found in the documentation.

If the videos of the public meetings held at Bios in St George’s and at St James Church hall in Somerset were ever actually released, the people of Bermuda would hear and see for themselves that this plan is far from viable.

Stop the BOPP!

JOHN WALSH

St George’s