Tragic And Mind-boggling - Cayman's Cruise Ship Solution

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Roz

Contributor
Scuba Instructor
Divemaster
Messages
115
Reaction score
84
Location
Bedfordshire, United Kingdom
We get it. We do understand the importance of tourism, and how this sector is a necessary and important revenue stream the world over. That this industry provides employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. But should it be at any cost? Is something rotten in the state of Grand Cayman? Looking from the outside in, there seems to be an almighty struggle going on between the Ministry of Tourism and the locals. What is really going on?

The Government of the Cayman Islands is currently assessing a 'proposed cruise berthing facility' that will boost the islands economy by allowing more and bigger cruise liners to berth at George Town.

"Belize is getting a pier; Haiti, the Dominican Republic. All our competitors in this region are building piers or already have piers the ships can go directly to."
- Minister of Tourism, Hon. Moses Kirkconnel


Firstly, has anyone actually asked the cruise holiday industry the question , "if we build a big pier to accommodate your huge cruise ships, will you use them and come and visit Grand Cayman?"

If the answer is 'yes', on the face of it, this development sounds fairly reasonable, so why is the local community in near panic?

This proposed project will come at a cost. That is to be expected. Therefore again why has DEMA (Diving Equipment Marketing Association) issued an urgent public policy alert? Because the 'cost' is environmental. It will cause substantial damage to many of the reefs and dive sites.

The Environmental Impact Assessment clearly revealed that the dredging operation would directly remove 15 acres of coral reefs, but even more worrisome it would kill or damage approximately 20 additional acres of coral reefs beyond the dredge site. This means that most of the harbour would be permanently damaged. Water clarity in the harbour would never be the same. And up to $20 million annual revenue currently derived from those reefs will be lost. Is this truly the smartest way to keep the cruise passengers visiting the Cayman Islands?

This situation reminds me of a tragic touching joke about Christmas. A very poor husband and wife want to give each other a present. The lady has quite magnificent long hair. She decides to sell her hair to a woman who makes wigs to buy a watch chain for her husband. The husband meanwhile sells his lovely gold watch to buy two beautiful hair combs for the wife. Each person sacrificed their most valuable possession.

It is tragic and mind-boggling that the proposed tourism assets come at the cost of those very same assets the tourists come to see and enjoy - Cayman's amazing marine resource. This resource has been the cornerstone of their marketing and PR for more years than I care to think about out. I find it ironic that the Department of Tourism wishes to destroy the very thing they have spent millions of dollars promoting year on year, decade upon decade.

"What I'm seeing is a death sentence for huge areas of reef on the west side of the island."
- Sunset House Owner, Adrien Briggs

What on earth has happened to joined up thinking? This seems to be just another example of our natural resources being nibbled away in the name of progress. If this proposed cruise berthing project goes ahead, who is to say that in another ten years time we don't have the same argument that the current berthing need future development, "but don't worry folks, this will bring X jobs and Y revenue?"

And if you think this argument is unique, something similar is happening in the UK right now over airport expansion.

Speaking of revenue generation, recent data from the Environmental Statement seems to indicate that the average visitor arriving by cruise ship spends far less than visitors arriving by air.

Average visitor spend arriving by cruise ship - $CI 82.14
Average visitor spend arriving by air - $CI 1,103.07

Annual Cruise Visitor Spend - $CI 115,000,000.00
Annual Air Visitor Spend - $CI 381,000,000.00

Back to the Grand Cayman situation. I am not against development, In fact I support progressive development where all factors are taken into account accordingly. Time is short however. If you feel that the Cayman plan needs to be given deeper consideration and an alternative solution looked at, that is away from the proximity of the reefs, (that are essential for the watersports and tourism industry), please email the Cayman Islands Department of the Environment; doe@gov.ky

"Sustainable tourism in Grand Cayman must balance well-managed use with environmental protection, for the loss of its natural resources will mean a loss of tourism and therefore jobs, economic revenue, and the beauty that is the island"
- Sunset House Manager, Keith Sahm

You have until close of play today - Friday 3rd July 2015 - to ask that an alternative solution is investigated. You can also sign this petition too.

"When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten, and the last stream poisoned, you will realise that you cannot eat money"
- Cree Indian Prophecy

For further information visit savecayman.org

 
Bonaire seems to have won this battle - at least so far.
 

This situation reminds me of a tragic touching joke about Christmas. A very poor husband and wife want to give each other a present. The lady has quite magnificent long hair. She decides to sell her hair to a woman who makes wigs to buy a watch chain for her husband. The husband meanwhile sells his lovely gold watch to buy two beautiful hair combs for the wife. Each person sacrificed their most valuable possession.


Hardly a joke! It is a classic and famous story by O.Henry, The Gift of the Magi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gift_of_the_Magi
 
GC has 160 km of coastline. If the surrounding reef is only an average of 100 meters wide, that works out to about 4000 acres of reef. So you are talking of something on the order of 1% of the reef destroyed or damaged. So what is the problem?
 


Speaking of revenue generation, recent data from the Environmental Statement seems to indicate that the average visitor arriving by cruise ship spends far less than visitors arriving by air.

Average visitor spend arriving by cruise ship - $CI 82.14
Average visitor spend arriving by air - $CI 1,103.07

Annual Cruise Visitor Spend - $CI 115,000,000.00
Annual Air Visitor Spend - $CI 381,000,000.00


I'm not in favor/against the cruise facility, but quoting somewhat misleading information doesn't really help make the case.

How many cruise visitors are there per year? How many more could there be with the new cruise facility?

How many air visitors are there per year? What could be done to increase that?

The important numbers left out of your post reveal that there are 345,000 air visitors per year and 1,400,000 cruise visitors. The number of cruise visitors is down from 1.9mm/year in 2006, while air passenger numbers are flat. I've not seen proposed forecasts, but let's assume that the cruise facility at least lets the Cayman Islands get back to previous levels. That would be an additional 500,000 passengers/year so roughly $45,000,000 in incremental revenue.

In order for the Caymans to make that same revenue via an increase in air passengers they'd need to attract 41,000 more TOURIST air travelers. (While 100% of cruise passengers are tourists, ~30% of air travellers are "business/other" travellers, so the current air tourism visitor count is ~241,000) An extra 41,000 air tourists is nearly a 20% increase in air tourists. That's huge! Two questions relative to that:

1.) What's going to attract them?
2.) Where are they going to stay?

There are 4,500 hotel/condo bedrooms available in the Cayman Islands currently. Occupancy rate was ~80% in 2014. Given uneven demand, seasonality, etc it becomes apparent that even if the Cayman islands could magically attract an extra 41,000 air visitors per year they will need somewhere in the neighborhood of an extra 750-1000 new hotel/condo bedrooms to accommodate them. Consider that Seven Mile Beach currently has 1,783 hotel rooms. So, for perspective, you're looking at an expansion of hotel rooms along the lines of a 50% increase in the number of hotel rooms on Seven Mile Beach.

Put another way: The Marriott on Seven Mile Beach has 250 rooms, so to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the 41,000 magically appearing air travelers would essentially require construction of FIVE new Marriott Resorts on Grand Cayman.

Cayman2.png


So, if we assume that the Cayman Islands needs to get that incremental revenue through either AIR or CRUISE passengers - but you don't want them to do it with cruise passengers - there are three questions for you:

  • Where would you like the five new resort hotels to be located?
  • What would the environmental impact of their construction and ongoing operation be?
  • How do you propose the Cayman Islands attract those extra 41,000 visitors in the first place?
  • For extra credit: What construction would be necessary in order for the airport to handle the additional ~500 flights per year needed to get those extra 41,000 air passengers on/off the island each year?
Again, I'm not in favor of/against the cruise facility. Just pointing out that when you look at the issue from a dispassionate, macro-economic standpoint... it isn't that simple.
 
Last edited:
Hey Roz,

let's not forget that you are not allowed to wear gloves when diving - else you get fined. It's all in the interest of the environment!!!!!!
 
... but quoting somewhat misleading information doesn't really help make the case.

... (While 100% of cruise passengers are tourists, ~30% of air travellers are "business/other" travellers

And the 30% you quote is all air passengers to all destinations??? If so, that's a useless stastical metric because GC is not an average destination.

Moreover, air passengers probably (my guess) stay a week whereas cruise passengers are there for a single day. Air passengers require food and lodging where cruise passengers do not.

This is a very complex comparison to make. There are many more factors than you touched on.
 
I have been on the island when four cruise ships were in port, and George Town was over run with tourists. I think they have bigger issues than just the environmental impact if they expand, they would need a functional transit system for starters. That would cost $$$$. I doubt they would bother, instead they would probably expand the number of jewelry stores first.
 
RJP, how're the figures working out for Harvest Caye in Belize? :(

While five more Marriott's environmental impact isn't all that appealing, at least that would provide employment for locals. I know I' know, I've not forgotten how impracticable that is.
 

Back
Top Bottom