BEST claims pier project haste cost taxpayers millions of wasted dollars
A rush to build a new cruise ship pier for the 2009 season could have cost taxpayers $14 million, according to the Bermuda Environmental Sustainability Taskforce (BEST).The organisation said that much of the $30 million of cost overruns in the construction of a second cruise ship pier in Dockyard could have been avoided if Government had carried out a proper Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before starting construction.In a statement, BEST Chairman Stuart Hayward said: “Had an appropriate and timely EIA been carried out, the process would have gone much more smoothly and various costly and time-consuming errors could have been avoided.”Government said the pier was responsible for putting $16 million into the local economy in 2009 $14 million less than the cost of the overruns.“A great deal of the $30 million in cost overruns, paid out of the public purse, resulted from a misguided attempt to push the project through without adhering to proper procedures,” he said.“The net benefit to the taxpayer would therefore have been far greater had a proper EIA been conducted, even if it had meant delaying the opening of the second cruise pier to the 2010 season.”Among the cost overruns that could have been avoided was an estimated $3.7 million spent to protect pregnant dolphins at the nearby Dolphin Quest facility.“These pregnancies were planned and formed part of a fairly high profile artificial insemination experiment,” Mr Hayward said. “Had a proper EIA been conducted, the plans for these pregnancies would have been known well in advance and Government could have prevented or delayed the insemination, thus avoiding $3.7 million in unforeseen expenses.”The cabinet approved the project, originally budgeted at $35 million, in late 2006, but in 2007 the Development Applications Board (DAB) recommended a number of changes, and split the project into two phases in order to accommodate it.Phase One of the project, the construction of the actual pier, was given approval, but the DAB ruled that more environmental work would have to be done before approval could be given to Phase Two, which involved the construction of the ferry building, land reclamation, a ground transportation area and sea wall.The Department of planning advised the Ministry of Tourism and Transport, which was in charge of the project, to seek an Special Development Order (SDO) for Phase Two, but the SDO had to be abandoned due to time constraints, forcing the project to seek retroactive approval.The DAB approved the project just months before it was scheduled for completion under the condition that monitoring programmes be established to check air and water quality, as well as monitor marine ecology.The board noted in the minutes from the March 25, 2009 meeting: “The board is disappointed with the applicants blatant disregard for the planning process in undertaking the Phase Two works.“The lack of scoping work has resulted in an Environmental Impact Statement which did not undertake the full range of scientific studies required, and therefore some conclusions are not fully substantiated.”The project was completed for the 2009 cruise ship season, but was millions of dollars over budget.Mr Hayward called for proper environmental studies to be carried out before new projects begin, naming the proposed Cross Island Marina as a project that has caused some concern.“Government’s now planning to build a large marina in the West End in what has been identified as one of the Island’s most environmentally-sensitive marine areas,” he said.“In order to avoid significant environmental damage and a repeat of wasted public funds due to inadequate expert support, BEST strongly recommends that a proper EIA process be strictly followed for the purposes of the marina, as well as any future projects requiring an EIA under planning guidelines.“Given the considerable environmental sensitivity of the area proposed for the Cross Island Marina, we anticipate that an appropriate EIA would provide indisputable evidence that the land reclamation and marina construction proposed should not take place at this site.”