Download "Delivering On Our Promises" Report Here

Find out how The Progressives have delivered on their promises to YOU, the Caymanian people, the last four years.

#CAYMANSTRONG

Integrated Solid Waste Management System for the Cayman Islands

Consultation Draft Outline Business Case

Purpose of this report:

This Outline Business Case (OBC) has been prepared by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment and Infrastructure UK Ltd. (Amec Foster WHeeler) and KPMG LLP (KPMG) for the Ministry and Health and Culture, Cayman Islands Government. It's primary purpose is to set out the means through which the National Solid Waste Management Strategy (NSWMS) for the Cayman Islands could be implemented to deliver a modern and sustainable integrated waste management system for the islands. This has been demonstrated through the preparation of a fully costed Reference Project that meets the vision, values, and strategic aims set out in the National Solid Waste Management Policy (NSWMP) for the Cayman Islands. 

Click here to view the report. 

A newly released report recommends building a long-term residential mental health facility in the Cayman Islands as the best way forward to treat local patients.

This was the conclusion of an outline business case prepared for government by consultancy firm KPMG.

Currently there is no long-term residential mental health care facility, and patients are sent overseas for treatment in Jamaica or the United States.

Many others who require treatment cannot be transferred abroad as they are unable to obtain visas due to criminal convictions. Patients in this position are treated either in the eight-bed mental health unit at the Cayman Islands Hospital in George Town, incarcerated at H.M.P Northward, or cared for by family members, often under difficult circumstances.

Following several stakeholder meetings and consultations, it was recommended that a long-term residential mental health facility should be developed for the Cayman Islands to make better provision for persons with serious mental illness or mental impairment.

The recommended facility is based on a design that incorporates a central building and a series of nine small cottages, each of which would accommodate six patients. A main building and seven of the cottages would be developed in the initial phase of construction, and the rest built in later years as demand dictates.

The proposed facility will be funded and operated by government. Discussions are now under way between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Planning, Lands, Agriculture, Housing and Infrastructure to identify a suitable site for the development and preparation of the land.

“I am delighted that we are now able to proceed with this much-needed facility to treat our mental health patients in a proper and fitting manner,” said Premier Hon. Alden McLaughlin, Minister for Health. “This has been a long time coming, but my administration is determined to ensure that we achieve this important milestone in the healthcare we provide for our people. Those who require treatment, often the most vulnerable in our society, will no longer have to be sent overseas and separated from loved ones to get the care they need. Importantly, instead of patients being locked up, or on the street, we will have the appropriate accommodation to help those who need it most.”

A full version of the KPMG report is available on the Ministry of Health website www.ministryofhealth.gov.ky.

Full copy of report here. 

By Premier Hon. Alden McLaughlin, MBE, JP, MLA
8 June, 2016


In November, 2015, the Deputy Governor and I launched the “Programme Brief” for Project Future, establishing a comprehensive and far-reaching programme of public sector reform. Project Future is made up of 50 potential projects, which will drive efficiency, improve the effectiveness of public services and ensure a sustainable future for the Cayman Islands.

The potential for Project Future to impact on Government and the services it provides is huge. The programme cuts across the Public Service spanning, for example:

• Large, complex capital projects, such as the Cruise Berthing Facility,

• Projects that will transform the way Government does its business, such as the Creation of a Utilities Commission, and the transformation of IT services within Government,

• Projects that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of departments or particular services such as Vehicle Safety Inspections, and

• Projects that deliver key policy priorities such as tackling unemployment and implementing E-Government

As I have explained before and most recently in an update to this Honourable House in May, 2016, Project Future is not designed as a short-term, quick-fix programme. This Government is determined to deliver lasting change which achieves the ambitious goals this country needs. Therefore, we have designed Project Future as a programme to be implemented over the next five years. Therefore, some projects will be completed before the 2017 elections, while others are not expected to be delivered until after the elections.

This is a bold move – but it is the right move – if we are to put the needs of our country before political expediency. As I reminded members of this Honourable House, it is right for the Government to take a long term view and to put in place the delivery of the reforms this country needs. If we remain bound to electoral cycles we remain bound to short-term action that will not tackle some of the fundamental issues we face. However, taking the long term view that our country needs cannot become an excuse for inaction and we need to ensure that progress toward our ambitious goals is maintained.

Today I am pleased to have been able to place on the table of this Honourable House, the first “Project Future Update Report”, which demonstrates our progress over the first six months of the programme.

I encourage the members of this Honourable House, the public and the media to read this important report. I especially recommend that they take the time to review the project overviews to get a sense of the extraordinary scope, scale and complexity of what the Government is determined to achieve. I think they will be struck by the contribution these projects can make to the future of our country and the Public Service.

In my recent statement on Project Future to this Honourable House, I was pleased to report that over 30 of the 51 projects from the “Programme Brief” had been progressed. I promised further details.

As the Project Future Update Report indicates, as at 25 May, 2016, 57 projects were being monitored by the Strategic Reforms Implementation Unit, on behalf of Cabinet and the Deputy Governor (the number of projects has increased as some of the original 51 have been broken down into sub-projects). Two-thirds of these projects (38/57) are already being progressed by the Civil Service. This means that they are active, and fall within one of the project phases being utilised for Project Future, as follows:

• 16 projects are in the initial phase and strategic assessments are under way

• For nine projects, formal Outline Business Cases are being prepared

• Seven projects are in the project initiation or project planning phases

• Six projects are in the project execution or closing phases and

• One small project, the transfer of the London Office to the Cabinet Portfolio, has been completed.

Approval of business case documents is a key milestone for projects and for Project Future overall. These documents are the results of analysis and research undertaken by the civil service on the projects assigned by Cabinet. They provide Cabinet with recommendations on the options available to achieve our policy priorities and to achieve value for money for any investments that are required.

As the Project Future Update Reports points out, since November, 2015, one Outline Business Case and two Strategic Assessments and have been finalised and approved by Cabinet:

• The business case for the creation of the Office of the Ombudsman has been approved

• A strategic assessment to explore options to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of land surveying services has been agreed; and

• The project to explore the potential to commercialise the national mail service has also had a strategic assessment approved by Cabinet

In addition, the following projects have recently been submitted for approval by Cabinet:

• Implementing E-Government

• Options for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of prisoner transport

• Options to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of vehicle safety inspections

A significant number of the other strategic assessment and business case documents are at an advanced stage and are expected to be ready for submission in the upcoming weeks.
Once considered and approved by Cabinet or the Deputy Governor, Project Future Strategic Assessments and Outline Business Case documents will be published. Already the first Outline Business Case to be approved has been published, for the creation of a new Office of the Ombudsman, and is available on the website of the Office of the Deputy Governor. Going forward, it is my expectation that these business case documents will be published, both on the websites of the Ministries/Portfolios responsible for their delivery and, centrally, on the Project Future website www.Projectfuturecayman.com. Accordingly, the two completed strategic assessments that I mentioned earlier will be published shortly.

This continues this Government’s commitment to openness and transparency, and our desire to keep the people of the Cayman Islands informed about the efforts the Government is making on their behalf, through the Project Future programme.

This Government has resisted calls for the blanket implementation of EY’s 2014 report. In November we were able, after careful analysis, to rule out 16 of those recommendations because they ran counter to Government policy or because our work demonstrated they were not right for Cayman at this time. These are things our critics would have had us wasting time and resources to rush to implement.

Still though, the lesson has not been learned and we still hear calls for the EY report to be implemented regardless. Last month in May, I had to come to this House to make a statement to correct the errors of the latest Compass editorial on the subject. I am not sure of their agenda, but they are wrong in principle, they are wrong in policy and they are wrong in practice.
They are wrong in principle because I and this Government believe in democracy. As such, we believe it is for the Government, not a group of consultants, to determine what is right for our country. Yes we are willing to listen to EY. Yes we respect their advice or we would not have hired them in the first place, but as EY themselves said, it is for Government itself to weigh that advice along with further work and evidence in order to determine what action is needed.

We have considered EY’s report properly against our objectives. We will implement the overwhelming majority of the recommendations though many of them in a modified form, appropriate for Cayman. We have also identified significant areas of reform that EY did not look at. If we followed the advice of our critics we would not now be working with business leaders and implementing Ready2Work.Ky to create jobs for our people because EY did not consider projects to promote employment. Instead we would be dedicating our efforts to merging the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and Veterinary Board, which EY did recommend. Forgive me, if I think that would be a very strange set of priorities for the Government.

The Compass is wrong as a matter of policy because their dogmatic belief in the privatisation of public services as the panacea for every problem is misguided and flies in the face of both the wisdom of experts in the field and international practice. There are many Project Future undertakings that will require chief officers to consider outsourcing as one of a range of available options to improve the delivery of services provided by the public sector and it is already apparent that Project Future will lead to greater involvement of the private sector in the delivery of public services. However, involving the private sector will be part of the solution where we are convinced that is appropriate as a result of rigorous exploration of all the options available rather than a first choice based on a false pre-conception and a prejudice against public servants. As a Government, we have a great deal of respect for the hard working civil servants who do so much for the people of our country, and we see no reason to risk their jobs on the basis of beliefs held by a few; that outsourcing is the panacea for every problem.

Finally, this Government’s critics are wrong in practice. They accuse us of making no progress on public sector reform but, as the Project Future Update Report demonstrates, the reality is quite different.

I would like to talk briefly about some of the key themes emerging from the work so far. In doing so, I am drawing both on the work that has reached Cabinet for decision and on what I know is under way in Ministries that will be coming to us shortly.

First, it is worth reflecting that our adherence to a robust management process has still allowed us to be flexible and take strategic decisions to press ahead with the implementation of projects where there is a pressing need to do so.

At the launch of the Programme back in November, I said that the major priority for the Government was to support Caymanians into employment. Accordingly we have split the project on tackling unemployment into its component parts, allowing our innovative public-private partnership for jobs, Ready2Work.Ky, which I referred to earlier, to progress straight to implementation while business cases for other aspects, such as the development of a clearing house for jobs, are developed.

The House will also be aware that we have maintained progress with the much needed reform of the education system in the country. When the new Education Bill comes before this honourable House, its passage and successful implementation will underpin the long-term development of the knowledge and skills our young people need to compete in the jobs markets of the future.
More generally, I am pleased to say that under the Deputy Governor’s leadership, our civil servants are embracing the potential for reform and bringing forward genuine options for significant change. I have long believed that those who work in public service day after day are best placed to identify the changes needed and so it is proving.

So far we have seen proposals that will:

• Improve customer service in operations as diverse as public complaints handling and planning and building inspection;

• Modernise legislative and regulatory frameworks for example thorough the creation of the new utilities commission, the Office of Competition and Regulation;

• Boost economic growth and support job creation including targeting support to new and growing small businesses; and

• Create new approaches to tackling seemingly intractable problems such as drug misuse and dependency

We have also seen options for change that will drive efficiency, reduce costs and deliver better value for money. Some of those options are concentrated on improving in-house, public sector provision. Others consider the outsourcing of services, where this is appropriate and can be done without encountering the problems that I referred to earlier.

Options for outsourcing are being actively considered in a range of projects from public works to hospital linen cleaning. It is clear, as I have said that one of the outcomes of the Project Future programme will be a greater role for the private sector in the delivery of public services. It will be a greater role reflecting a sound approach to outsourcing when that is demonstrably the right answer for the future.

Projects are also demonstrating the civil service’s willingness to learn from experience in other jurisdictions rather than thinking everything must be invented here. The emerging business case for implementing e-Government, for example, is likely to demonstrate that we can deliver much improved on-line services and generate considerable efficiencies by following the lead of other countries, notably Estonia.

Even in areas such as vehicle inspection and licencing where initial work is suggesting that services may not, in fact, be good candidates for major reform projects, civil servants are still identifying potential improvements that can be implemented as “business as usual” activity.

Given the mix of projects, Project Future has the potential to impact, profoundly, the customer experience of public services and to reduce the future burden we place on those who pay to finance our public services. As such, it is vital that we undertake these reforms in a structured and measured way. For the first time, a major reform programme, and the individual projects within it, is being managed in accordance with international best practice standards. This demonstrates the Civil Service commitment to effective delivery and increasing capability to manage this type of undertaking.

Increasing the project management capability within the Civil Service takes time, and we need to continue to build the professional expertise to deliver the necessary strategic assessments and business cases that will guide the delivery of projects. I am pleased to say that as a result of training and support, as demonstrated by the progress documented in the Update Report, the pace of the programme is now picking up in a sustainable manner.

I recognise that these are early days in the life of Project Future. Much is still to be done to bring these great ideas to fruition and to implement the ambitious programme of reform that we have set ourselves.

Project Future is a significant and far-reaching reform programme and we are committed to delivering the changes in our public services that this country needs. This Government has demonstrated over the last three years that it delivers on its promises.

Creating a long term programme may be seen as a political risk as it ignores the usual electoral cycles that bind political action. Make no mistake, though, I am all too aware of the reality of those cycles. When this Progressives-led Government goes to the polls, we will be proud to lay before the people a track record of achievement, of which Project Future will be an important part. We will also be laying out our plans for the future of our country and the platform we are creating, by beginning now to work on major reforms that will only bear fruit after the elections. This will enable the electorate to have confidence in our ability to see through the changes that this country needs.

Download the complete report here.

By the Premier, Hon. Alden McLaughlin

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to address a most erroneous and misleading editorial in today’s “Compass”.

Under the sensationalized title: The EY Report: Requiem for Recommendations, the editorial team have chosen to voice opinions that are in no way based on fact, but demonstrate a willful misunderstanding of the work of my Government and the Civil Service, in relation to the Project Future Programme.

I am fully cognizant that an Editorial is an opinion piece but that does not give a so called reputable publication a license to ignore the facts. They have also chosen to launch a personal, unwarranted and unjustified attack on a very capable senior civil servant, Mrs Mary Rodrigues and, by extension the civil service senior management team that are delivering these projects.
Madame Speaker, Project Future establishes, for the first time, a comprehensive and far-reaching programme of public sector reform, which will drive the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. The agenda for change has been set by the Government’s political priorities. In that context, the Government has welcomed the EY report as a useful stimulus to its thinking, providing a helpful challenge to existing ways of working. However, the EY report does not dictate the Project Future agenda.

Madame Speaker, with the intention of speaking fact to fiction, it should be acknowledged that the Project Future programme will see the implementation, in full or modified form, of the majority of the EY recommendations and a number of other recommendations.

Madame Speaker, in November 2015, my government published the Project Future Programme Brief. At the time I explained that the projects would be tackled in five phases, to be implemented over the next 5 years. Work has commenced on numerous projects. Some will be completed before the 2017 election, while others are not expected to be delivered until after the election.
I also explained then, and I do so again, that it is right for the Government to take a long term view and to put in place the delivery of the reforms this country needs. If we remain bound to electoral cycles we remain bound to short term action that will not tackle some of the fundamental issues we face. Our country needs more than that. Our country deserves better than that and that it why this Progressives-led Government is setting out a clear plan of future action.

Madame Speaker, in the Project Future Programme Brief, I also identified some 16 recommendations from the EY report that would not be implemented, because they clearly conflicted with our policy – for example recommendations to raise levies would clearly run counter to the commitment this Progressives-led Government has given the country to seek to cut rather than raise levies and charges. We also excluded recommendations where the analysis indicated that the benefits were not sufficient to justify taking the ideas forward. Madame Speaker, this is open, transparent and responsible government in action.
Madam Speaker, the Compass editorial today reserves its most vitriolic comments for Mrs Rodrigues, whom it seems to hold personally responsible for implementing the key recommendations of the report, while insinuating that my government’s support for Project Future is less than “enthusiastic”.

While I suspect that they know better, let me make clear the actual governance structure for Project Future:

• We, the Government are the decision-makers. We have selected the projects to be explored, and we decide which business cases documents are approved.

• The Deputy Governor and his Chief Officers are responsible for implementation.

Mrs. Rodrigues and the Strategic Reforms Implementation Unit (SRIU) are responsible for developing the implementation strategy and providing tools and guidance to help Chief Officers and their teams to deliver the projects. Madame Speaker the SRIU has delivered in this role and continue to work to support the work of the civil service. Already their work has already earned the regard of external consultants and officials from other Overseas Territories.

Madame Speaker, it has been five months since I launched the Project Future Programme in November, 2015. While there has been a significant learning curve for government and the civil service alike, and we have faced some challenges, as a government we have declared our objectives and we are making progress. Here is but a brief snapshot of the work which is underway, in various stages (i.e. either in preparing business case documents, project planning or project execution):

• 13/17 of the Phase I projects,

• 7/9 of the Phase 2 and 3 projects,

• 11/18 of the Phase 4 projects, and

• 2/7 of the Phase 5 projects.

It has always been my intention to continue to provide public updates on Project Future at key milestones. I am therefore pleased to announce that we are preparing a formal update on progress this month, which will commence with my contributions to the Budget address and will extend to a formal publication which will be circulated to all media houses.

I will ensure that the publication is in clear, plain language which even the Editorial Board of the Compass will be unable to misinterpret.

The Ministry of Tourism has received approval from Cabinet to release the Environmental Economic Appraisal prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) on the proposed cruise berthing facility. The report concludes that the estimated economic benefits to be derived from the piers exceed the environmental costs associated with the damage to the reef.

PwC were tasked by Government to provide an addendum to the Outline Business Case (OBC) updated with the findings of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Their assessment was based on the information collated by Baird, together with the economic and financial information analysed during the original OBC development. Additionally, since the EIA had identified damage to the coral reefs, the impact was also factored in to the cost-benefit analysis of the overall project.

Since preparing the addendum, the CIG received the 2014/2015 Business Research & Economic Advisors Report (BREA) which is typically prepared on behalf of the FCCA to analyse the economic impact of cruise tourism in Caribbean destinations. Given that the BREA report is based on factual, analytical data rather than assumptions, the Ministry commissioned the report and PwC were asked to include an evaluation of the latest BREA findings within their economic assessment.

The BREA report is both timely and significant because it provides data as recent as 2014 regarding cruise passenger volumes and their spending patterns in Grand Cayman. Conversely, the original OBC drafted in October 2013 and its Addendum drafted by PwC in July 2015 both used data from 2012 in their calculations, as that was the most current information available at the time. These latest statistics have enabled assumptions to be replaced with facts, allowing decisions to be taken based on accurate, credible data.

The BREA report noted that historical data on passenger arrivals showed that growth in Grand Cayman has lagged significantly behind those destinations with berthing piers. Analysis of the data showed that during the 2014/15 cruise year, 1.45 million passengers visited Grand Cayman spending an average of 4 hours ashore and generating total expenditures of US$160.9 million. This implies an average passenger spend of US$115.60 per passenger which is 23% higher than was assumed in the OBC, which used US$93.70, as was reported for 2012.

Given the magnitude of the berthing facility project and the potential environmental impact, Government has reviewed 10 comprehensive reports which provide scientific data and analysis on every conceivable aspect of the proposed port development. Since embarking on this journey, the Ministry of Tourism has maintained that any proposed development would be informed by the Outline Business Case [OBC] and the Environmental Impact Assessment [EIA]. The Ministry remains committed to that stance and will continue pursuing a careful and methodical approach as the project moves forward.

With the EIA confirming there will be no negative impact to Seven Mile Beach, Governments overarching objective is to arrive at an outcome that will deliver the maximum economic benefit to the people of the Cayman Islands with the least environmental impact to George Town Harbour. I am of the view that supporters and opposers to the project are in agreement on this point, as I am sure neither side wishes to see the environment impacted unnecessarily.

To safeguard any investment made by the Country into the port project, the OBC recommends securing passenger guarantees from the cruise lines. The Ministry of Tourism is having discussions with the cruise lines and I am confident that terms will be agreed that are acceptable to both sides.

Additionally, given the fact that the cruise lines have vast and varied experience in pier construction, Government intends to present all of the proposed berthing options and pier designs for their consideration. We will also be seeking their input and expertise in identifying the options that are more environmentally friendly and aligned with their needs.

It is widely understood that the tourism industry contributes approximately 24% of the Cayman Islands Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and contributions from both cruise and stayover visitation are vital to the Cayman Islands economy. Approximately 85% of visitors to the Cayman Islands arrive predominantly by cruise ship sustaining an industry that creates employment, generates revenue through sales and taxes and provides employment for many small operators such as taxi drivers, tour operators, attractions, retail establishments, among others.

From a regional perspective, all of the 22 cruise ports in the Caribbean and Central America have berthing facilities except the Cayman Islands. Feedback from the cruise lines affirms the inconvenient truth that the Cayman Islands will continue to lose market share unless a berthing facility is constructed to facilitate the fast, easy and safe movement of passengers to and from their ships.

Cruise lines are building larger ships with carrying capacities ranging between 4,000 and 6,000 passengers and some of the largest cruise ships to sail the seas are slated to make their maiden voyages in the near future.

For example, the Norwegian Escape with a carrying capacity of 4200 passengers is set to launch in October 2015. Royal Caribbean’s Ovation of the Seas carrying 4,180 passengers is also set to launch in April 2016. Carnival Cruise line will also be launching the largest ship in its fleet, the Carnival Vista in early spring 2016. Carnival has also ordered 8 new cruise ships for delivery over the period 2019 to 2022.

Without berthing facilities the Cayman Islands will not be in the consideration set when itineraries for these ships are being crafted and we will continue to be bypassed as is currently the case with the Oasis ships. As a consequence, our cruise industry will become severely impacted if Carnival Cruise Line and others reduce their calls in port because we cannot service the new ships in their fleet they are transitioning to.

The question for the Cayman Islands therefore becomes distilled to do we want to remain in the cruise tourism business? If we do, we must understand that doing so means we must provide berthing.

The OBC has estimated cost of constructing the piers to be CI$156 million which includes a CI$33 million contingency. The Ministry of Tourism is engaging in discussions with cruise lines to arrive at a funding model that will deliver the best possible outcome for the Country while ensuring that the berthing facility is owned by the People of the Cayman Islands in 20 years.

If the Ministry is successful in securing a partnership with the cruise lines, we can realistically expect passenger volumes to be maintained or increased so that their investment can be recouped.

The installation of the proposed cruise piers will finally and effectively bring the Cayman Islands on par with the expected norms of modern cruising and will allow us to provide a safer, standardized and more enjoyable experience to the passengers who visit our shores.

The cruise industry is vital to our society and economy and Government remains committed to providing the necessary protections to ensure its continued growth and success.

To view the PWC Environmental Economic Appraisal, click here.
To view the Business Research and Economic Advisors report, click here.

The Ministry of Tourism has released the latest report from Baird outlining the potential costs for mitigating the environmental impact of the proposed cruise berthing facility.

The report analyses a variety of options identified in the Environmental Statement (ES) including mitigation for natural hazards, turbidity and sedimentation, air quality, marine ecology and cruise and cargo operations among others.

In the report, a coral relocation programme, which remains a contentious subject of discussion particularly for opponents of the project, was reviewed in detail and key tasks regarding the recommended approach were outlined.

In Baird’s summary of the possible mitigation methods, the probability of success for each of the methods were ranked as being high, mid or low, and estimated costs were provided for each. Coral relocation was separated into three levels with associated costs starting at $8-10M rising to a maximum of $20-25M for level 3. According to Baird, the probability of success for all levels of coral relocation was rated as mid, which is the same rating given to turbidity barriers or silt curtains.

Commenting on the report’s release, Hon. Moses Kirkconnell, Minister for Tourism explained “The original EIA conducted by Baird included a desktop study of the proposed dredging footprint whereas the Benthic Habitat study went significantly further by surveying the seabed and precisely quantifying the marine habitat in that area. Having this actual data has enabled Baird to more accurately assess the scope of the relocation programme in terms of the actual number and size of corals that can be harvested and relocated.

More importantly, it has enabled Baird to provide an opinion on how successful such an effort could be.”

The EIA included an estimate of $9M for a coral translocation programme, but having the benefit of the Benthic study, Baird have now also been able to provide a more comprehensive breakdown of the additional ‘soft costs’ that would be incurred for planning and designing the coral relocation plan, as well as monitoring the programme during the implementation phase and for a period of 5 years post construction. These soft costs are estimated to range between $510K and $655K.

“It is critical that Government is provided with accurate information and scientific data so that informed decisions are made regarding the construction of the cruise piers, the Minister stated. “There is no point in commissioning experts with years of experience in their respective fields to provide us with scientifically based analyses and recommendations only to subjectively reject what they are saying. In this instance, Baird, who conducted the EIA and CSA who undertook the Benthic Habitat Survey have both assessed coral relocation as being a viable mitigation option. Baird are internationally recognized experts in coastal and marine science while CSA began doing coral reattachment during the infancy of this technique and have been instrumental in refining coral reattachment procedures as a means of accelerating habitat recovery.”

In terms of a timeline, the report recommends that the planning and design of the coral relocation programme should be considered immediately. However Chief Officer Stran Bodden confirmed that a coral relocation programme as defined in the report would be reviewed following a formal decision by Cabinet to proceed.

Although Cabinet is still to formally decide on the berthing facility, Premier Alden McLaughlin yesterday announced that government is broadly agreed on the merits of building a cruise port and an enhanced cargo port. As such, the project has been given the green light to proceed to the next stage which involves discussions with the Foreign and Commonwealth office and cruise lines.

Click here to read the full Baird report.

The Benthic Habit Survey Report commissioned on behalf of the Cayman Islands Government to examine marine habitats within the proposed cruise piers dredging footprint estimates that a significant proportion of the impacted coral could be successfully translocated.

Marine Environmental Consultants CSA Ocean Sciences Inc (CSA) which undertook the seabed survey found that within the 32.5 acre (131,523 m2) area of impact, the coral-supporting habitats amounted to a total of 11.2 acres (45,350 m2) and comprised of approximately 4.3 acres (17,560 m2) of hard bottom with sand veneer habitat and 6.9 acres (27,790 m2) of exposed reef formation habitat.

Based on the Consultants calculations, 391,001 hard corals and 61,291 soft corals were estimated to be at risk from the dredging and land reclamation activities. Of these, the report states that more than 116,800 hard corals and over 17,000 soft corals could be successfully translocated. The remaining corals were deemed to be relatively young specimens and unsuitable for translocation due to their small size.

Tourism Minister Moses Kirkconnell stated that the Ministry commissioned the report to get a clearer understanding of the composition of the seabed within the dredging footprint. “The Ministry takes seriously the environmental concerns associated to the proposed development of the piers and commissioned the Benthic Habitat survey to look more closely at the area to eliminate any data or analysis gaps. This survey is both necessary and timely, particularly in light of the differing views and opinions about precisely what exists within the area of impact and how it could potentially be affected if the project proceeded?”

Minister Kirkconnell further explained that while the EIA conducted by Baird stands as is, this supplemental report is like looking at the area through a magnifying glass. “This is the largest project ever being considered for our Islands and government has a responsibility and duty of care to ensure that our collective decision is based on sound scientific evidence, not speculation or impassioned pleas, however well intended those might be. When Cabinet convenes to make its decision on the cruise piers it must be able to do so with full confidence that all of the relevant facts and information have been sourced and objectively presented for consideration. Additionally, proposed mitigation solutions will also have to satisfactorily demonstrate the likelihood of successful outcome, again based on objective data and evidence.”

In the Benthic Survey Report ‘In-kind’ and ‘out-of-kind’ mitigation options are proposed as possible solutions to address impacted coral. In simple terms, in-kind mitigation is the creation of a habitat type similar to that which is impacted by an activity, whereas out-of-kind mitigation is the creation of a habitat that is different to the original environment. The report states that mitigation options which include coral translocation and the establishment of coral nurseries were considered by CSA to be suitable for the George Town Harbour Berthing Project. “Coral translocation, if done properly, can significantly reduce the loss of coral tissue and the ecological services provided by corals,” the report states.

CSA began doing coral reattachment during the infancy of this technique and have been instrumental in refining reattachment procedures. Their opinion is based on their extensive experience in coral reattachment and field-tested applications for reattaching coral, soft coral, and large structural sponges as a means of accelerating habitat recovery.

The survey notes that the Company has conducted coral reattachment on more than 60 programs worldwide, some of which were monitored by the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Coral Reef Institute (NCRI), and Florida Marine Research Institute, to determine the relative success of the coral reattachment technique.

In one example in the Florida Keys, an independent third party reported 100% survivorship and coral colony stability 2 years following the restoration. Another example cites 1,000 coral colonies which were temporarily cached due to construction and reattached to a submerged structure. According to the National Coral Reef Institute, monitoring of the coral stability and health at the reattachment site over a 3-year period showed a 97% success rate.

Commenting on the time government has invested in data gathering, Councillor for Tourism Joey Hew stated “Those for and against the project are understandably keen to know what Governments ultimate decision will be and therefore the time taken to source expert advice and scientific data is proving to be a cause of frustration to some. However, I believe that the majority of our people prefer that this important and necessary process is carried out thoroughly and are supportive of the steps being taken, particularly as all of this intellectual property belongs to the Country.”

The Benthic Habit Survey Report is currently being assessed by Government officials in the Ministry of Tourism and the Department of Environment and is being posted to the Ministry’s website for public review.

Click here to view the full Benthic Habit Survey Report.