"I do not believe the controversy is about the environment.  The real motive is money and financial conflicts between different groups.  The residents of Guana Cay have no real history of environmental activism and need to get their collective acts together...nobody there is active in the Bahamas National Trust or working towards real preservation of Fowl Cay...I am not too sympathetic (with the people of Guana Cay)...If I observed Abaconians obeying the fishing regulations and otherwise trying to be good stewards of the resources, I might believe there were actually some environmental concerns.

- Kathleen Sullivan Sealey, Marine Ecologist & Consultant to the Bakers Bay Golf and Ocean Club.

That the developer believes the native inhabitants of Guana Cay are not fighting for their own island's environment is both naive and perplexing.  That she can claim this environmental and human rights fight is about money and financial interests is both laughable and downright scary.

There are financial interests, but those interests live in places like California, and they pay the ecologist-consultants' salaries.  If this was about financial interests, wouldn't the native residents and second home-owners in Guana Cay support this mega-development?. 

But it's not.  People, sometimes, they have higher values than that.  And in this case, they are fighting a developer's Environmental Impact Assessment for the fate of their own coral reef. 

The islanders of Guana Cay have fought Sullivan-Sealey's EIA so well that some of the most prestigious names in the world of conservation are asking the developer to respond to the alleged inadequacies.  Not only that, but this case has spurred a worldwide debate among top scientists about developer's ecologist ethics, and about whether it's necessary, or beneficial, for a developer to envelop themselves in so much secrecy.

In scientific circles, a developer's relative willingness to engage the public is called 'transparency.'

Curiously, Kathleen Sullivan-Sealey chimed in on this herself, writing to me, "I think we can change the requirements for developers to work with universities and environmental groups to have a more open and transparent process of impact assessment. Most importantly, we need to raise the level of general science/ envrionmental literacy especially among the non-government organizations."

You would think that Sullivan-Sealey would act on her own call for transparency, especially since it appears she has an open line of communication.  She writes me, "I negotiated ownership of all the data and information that I collected, and have been free to publish..."

But Sullivan-Sealey has been virtually mute.  There is almost no record of her defending the EIA in public about her involvement in one of the most dastardly developments ever built in the Caribbean, besides her revealing talks with Notes from the Road.  Likewise, Discovery Land Company itself seems to be unwilling to talk to the public, or even defend themselves against mounting scientific data from several scientific fields. 

Why?

Guana Cay coral Reef. Erik Gauger

The question is, shouldn't ecologists working for developers - especially ecologists whose work is partially funded by conservation and educational insitutions - have an ethical obligation to speak with the public and community about the deficiencies the scientific world is pointing out about her EIA?

The EIA for the development has been dragged through the mud by scientists, and more data is about to be announced that will further implicate the EIA as faulty science, and the developer's plan as an environmental catastrophe about to happen. 

I wrote to the coral list, a group of 3,300 marine scientists interested in coral issues.

"Some of you have asked to see more photos of the actual coral reef which is adjacent to the proposed golf course on Guana Cay. I just got some photos that were taken last week. They are posted here:

Coral

If you look at the images and compare them to the developers master plan, you can extrapolate the enormity of this project. One of you, Andrew Ross, had mistaken me for being the developer and thanked me for being transparent, which he said was unusual for a developer. With that said, now I am curious why the coral community becomes so tight-lipped once it gets involved in development issues? Shouldn't marine ecologists associated with developments communicate with the public and the scientific community regardless of who they work for? No offense, but it seems there is no baseline of ethics among the coral world. It would seem common sense that marine ecologists associated with developments should have to answer the deficiencies that the rest of the scientific community is digging up regarding their EIA. In this case, even the International Vice President of the Sierra Club is asking the developer for more transparency. Why is communication so difficult?

Coral ecologist Tom Williams wrote back publicly and said, "wake up, coral ecologists that work for the developers usually have a confidentially clause or have a professional ethic of not talking whether they believe in the Project or know it is a diaster they may try to minimize but engineers are there to make the project successfully as they are paid far more in supervision than in design. The scientific community usually have too many other things to do unless they are involved in the site or live in the area."

My thoughts on this were; Discovery Land Company has painted itself as the opposite of this, and Sullivan-Sealey's quote that she has control over her research seems to support this. Is the problem perhaps that developer ecologists are motivated by the system toward compromising results?

An assesment of a similar development in Bimini was written by local scientists. They wrote, "The islands of North and South Bimini with a population of 1,638 people are actually very small islands comprising an area of only a few square miles, much of which is wetlands.  Because the inhabited portion of North Bimini, where most of the Biminites live, is just over one-half a square mile, North Bimini is certainly the most densely populated Family Island in the Bahamas."

”.  In a meeting at Bimini later that month, Applied Technology and Management’s (ATM) Greg Braun, co-author of the RAV Environmental Impact Statement, told us that he was appalled at the damage this project was about to visit on Bimini’s lagoon.  He explained that RAV’s mandate to ATM was simply to tell the developer how to minimize environmental damage without having to alter the project plans.  Braun admitted that this could hardly be considered an authentic Environmental Impact Statement but in as much as RAV already had an agreement with the government the company could pretty much do what it wanted."

"We discussed the various phases of the project and deficiencies of the EIS and mutually agreed, in principle, to try to reach an accommodation through negotiation.  Still, we got the impression that Capo would do as he pleased.  About two weeks later Greg Braun recanted his original statement about Capo’s indifference and said he would produce an authentic EIS.  Further, Braun stated that he would let Capo know his concerns about removing mangroves and dredging in the North Sound.  He would try to convince RAV not to touch North Sound until the first phase consisting of the hotel, casino, shopping center, housing and marina were completed.  Apparently he was successful since to date North Sound remains largely intact." 

"Later in the month Nick Nuttall wrote a letter to the BEST Commission seriously criticizing RAV’s EIS and also calling for an independent assessment.  On January 26 a lead article in the Nassau Guardian (Personal Communication, [Sullivan-Sealeys husband] to Gruber) reported that RAV was employing undocumented foreign workers at its Treasure Cove construction site in Nassau."

"On the spot Prime Minister Ingraham made an executive decision to disallow any development on the eastern side of North Sound.  Michael Major expressed concern about the EIS because of obvious shortcomings and there was a general call for independent assessments on all future developments in the Bahamas.  Shortly thereafter, the Prime Minister’s office assigned a Bahamian fisheries officer to monitor all RAV work in the lagoon." 

"Even ATM, author of the biased EIS, was shorted by two thirds of its fee.  This demonstrates a pattern of behavior by RAV, which would make it difficult to trust the company or rely on their promises." 

"Ecologically, the worst-case scenario had become reality.  Contrary to the HoA, the EIS and verbal promises, RAV recklessly excavated the seafloor without using protective booms, silt barriers or sedimentation traps and produced extensive siltation throughout the lagoon and nearby coral reefs."

Throughout the development, secrecy has been the norm. 

Troy Albury, the sharp-witted Guana Cay divemaster and reluctant President of the island's organization writes in an October 1 letter to the Abaconian, "I sat down with Mr. Marshall (former presidential advisor who is in charge of 'community affairs' for Discovery Land Company's Bakers Bay project) three months ago and outlined some of these concerns and requests.  As of yet, I have not been dignified with a response.  He assured me that he would pass on my concerns to the principals at Discovery Land, and he would get back to me."

Albury's requests were very reasonable.  He writes,

"We wanted monitoring programs in place to assure the golf course was not going to affect the reef...we wanted a commitee of local Guana Cay residents on their Guana Cay Foundation committee to be kept abreast of what was going on in the development and to have some oversight on their environmental monitoring."

He continues,

"We wanted clarification on what concessions they would be giving to the people of Guana.  They had promised to accomodate our garbage and sewerage needs...we wanted some things in writing and clarifications.  the people of Cherokee were promised many things by Winding Bay which never came to fruition..."

"He (Mr. Marshall) promised he would get back to me and we could discuss the items further.  Mr. Marshall has said that he does not want to discuss the project with the people of Guana because we are so vocal and animated with our objections.  Would he rather we just shut up and let them go ahead with their plans?"

Well, of course they want the islanders to shut up.

Everything about the development - from its treatment of the native inhabitants to the wrecking of Abaco's economy to the ultimate environmental destruction about to ensue, requires everyone to shut up.  Rationality does not lie on the side of the developer.  Typically, if you want to find out who's against the side of the truth, In fact, despite the islanders alleged animation, they have acted with tremendous amounts of dignity every step of the way.  They have even offered the developer the benefit of the doubt. 

In response, Discovery Land Company has offered no dignity in return.  In return, they have responded with disdain and secrecy - a potion of deceit.  The world has not taken kindly.

The proposed development is ripe with inadequacies and faults, so many that ecologists around the world are shaking their heads.  But few understand just how dangerous their most ridiculous and devastating project will be. 

The developers are planning to build one of the largest marinas in the world...on this seven mile isle only a quarter mile wide.

According to a March 17, 2005 article in the Bahama Journal, Macushla Pinder writes,

Despite Mr. Christie’s assurances that he and Mr. Sweeting also discussed the issue during a trip to Green Turtle Cay, the South Abaco MP told a different story. According to Mr. Sweeting, he and the Prime Minister met on only one occasion and at the time, their focus was only the $200 million Abaco Club at Winding Bay. “I do suffer from a lack of hearing, but I don’t believe I suffer from a lack of memory,” Mr. Sweeting said. “I remember several comments made here in this honourable House on this matter, but to the best of my recollection, I have only had the privilege to meet with the Prime Minister on one occasion and that dealt with trying to protect some property in Winding Bay.” Mr. Sweeting said having met with Passerine’s investors, he suggested they leave Guana Cay’s wetlands the way they are, an idea he said they thought was a good one. In the end, the South Abaco MP said while he would prefer seeing Guana Cay remain the way it is, he is proud of what the government was able to accomplish in the heads of agreement. He also said it was unfortunate that the heads of agreement for the project had not yet been tabled. It was a comment North Abaco MP Hubert Ingraham built on. “One of the irksome things about this was when we met with the developers representative in Abaco, they promised us faithfully they would have delivered to us a copy of their proposal to the government,” Mr. Ingraham said. He said that the developers had promised to provide copies of the proposal to him and Mr. Sweeting. “But they came into my office and said that they had been advised or instructed by the Ministry of Financial Services not to give us copies and we never got copies,” Mr. Ingraham said.

Part of transparency is responding to reality. Kathleen Sullivan-Sealey's research has largely been based on fishes in coral environments. But not on corals themselves. Writes a review of a book, "her research group looked at foraging behavior and habitat changes in groupers (Family Serranidae). From studies of population process and genetics of grouper, it became clear that new tools to examine habitat availability on a larger scale than single reef systems were needed.

The Discovery Land Company Bakers Bay dilemma creates an example for the future of transparency in developer-community relations and ultimately, for environmental preservation.

Perhaps the close association between developer and ecologist, as well as the developer funding the EIA - the whole current model for development and the environment should go out the window.

In the Bahamas, the so-called "BEST commission" reviews and approves EIA's. But the BEST commission also appears to be closely linked to the government in the Bahamas. And in this case, the Prime Minister of the Bahamas has been in the foreground of this project. Does this system really ensure that the EIA is accurate with regards to the ultimate impact of the development? Of course not.

The Abacos are ripe with places that are appropriate for development. There is little scientific disagreement about that. If the local community could be involved, perhaps even provide the independent monitoring of a development themselves, perhaps development issues would run smoother. It is the locals who most benefit from good development, and who most suffer, from environmentally destructive development.

When locals are not involved in a process, when in fact they are overstepped in the regular processes of approving components of development, we have to recognize that there is a reason - that the developer is trying to push something forward that should never have been done.

EIA's need to be written by an independent group, with no ties to the developer. These independent groups need to include scientists who are relevant to the main environmental issues, as well as include input and involvement from the community.

A foreign developer and an environmental monitoring team from faraway places would naturally have a more complete EIA if the locals were involved in its creation. Clearly, in the case of Guana Cay, the locals have a range of information and experience about their own environment. Many of the locals are fishermen, divers and even mangrove experts.

But an EIA paid for by a developer is naturally going to be biased. Research needs to become blind, and as long as that is not the case, developers and environmentalists will always come to uneasy standstills.

If research is blind, it becomes authoritative. I cannot hope to imagine how all of this should come about, but it's certain that the travesty at Guana Cay is helping to spur this debate in the international science circles.