Dear Editor,
The country’s reefs are an important contributor to the national economy. Based on an Economic Valuation Study of St. Maarten’s coral reef eco-system, the economic contribution of a healthy coral reef system was found to be over US $66 million.
This money trickles down throughout the economy in the form of salaries, social/health premiums, fees to operate in the nature protected areas, gasoline to run the dive boats, other services from the maritime sector, tax revenues, etc.
The customers that bring in the US $66+ million into our economy are mainly stayover tourists and some cruise passengers who spend the aforementioned by staying in our hotels, renting cars, eating in restaurants, purchasing diving packages, shopping, entertainment, excursions, etc.
The aforementioned study was conducted by the St. Maarten Nature Foundation, with the assistance of the United Nation’s Environment Program (UNEP) and the World Resources Institute (WRI).
According to the Nature Foundation, “The results of this study shows that Coral Reefs are one of the island’s most valuable resources and provide livelihoods through coral reef-associated tourism as well as protection from large, damaging waves caused by hurricanes.”
Today post-Irma, some Coral Species according to the Nature Foundation have suffered 70-95 per cent extreme hurricane damage. “Intense impacts have been recorded on certain coral species and on the reef, however, also some reef recovering has already been recorded,” the St. Maarten Nature Foundation said in a statement in November. It further added, “95 per cent of the Staghorn coral colonies have been destroyed by Hurricane Irma. No colonies have been found or only small fragments remain.”
Nature Foundation stated in the past, “Tourism and the marine industry contribute significantly to the economy and both sectors depend on the health of St. Maarten’s marine resources.”
Funding will no doubt be needed to help the recovery of our dive sector. Nature has already started its recovery as noted by the Nature Foundation, but financial resources should be allocated from the funding to be provided by the Dutch Government for the country’s recovery and rebuilding phase that will commence in 2018.
The Nature Foundation has already commenced with a coral reef monitoring project to scientifically establish what the impacts have been on the reefs from Hurricanes Irma and Maria using the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (GCRMN) standard. This information could be used to secure much needed funding for sectoral recovery.
Australian scientists have developed a fertility treatment for coral to help regenerate the Great Barrier Reef – 2,300 kilometres long and a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Site – which has been extensively damaged by coral bleaching – a process of warm water that causes coral to die.
Scientists have taken microscopic sperm and eggs during a reef’s annual coral spawning event and put them into giant tanks for fertilisation. The coral larvae are then planted back onto the reef, and according to lead researcher Professor Peter Harrison from Southern Cross University, the juvenile corals had successfully established themselves on the reef.
Scientists have said that the success of this new research not only applies to the Great Barrier Reef but has potential global significance. Perhaps this is something for the Nature Foundation to explore with respect to the recovery of the St. Maarten coral reef ecosystem.
Roddy Heyliger
Dear Editor,
Can you imagine that you were in charge of the government of a small island where 15 per cent of the economy was attributable to the yachting sector, this sector had significant competition, and the island was hit by a hurricane that was stronger than any hurricane that hit any global yachting destination ever in the history of the world? What would you do to minimize the damage and optimize the industry’s contribution to the economy in the short term?
Let’s imagine there were huge damages to the boats and many were under water, docks were damaged and if the boats were not moved the docks would not be able to be rented in the coming season.
Would you try to get the vessels salvaged as quickly as possible or would you impose new rules that would slow this process up?
Would you ensure that the visitors for the coming season were assured that the navigation channels were cleared and that the minimum facilities for visitors in the coming season were defined as safe and make efforts to advise potential visitors of this?
Would you be aware of the fact that the amount of salvage capacity needed was much much more than was locally available?
Would you be aware that if boats were left immersed for a long period it would increase the chances of them being abandoned?
Would you be aware that immersed boats would suffer from electrolysis finally causing their tanks to break and spill fuel?
Would you be aware that long immersion would quickly reduce the value of the damaged boats to zero or less?
Would you be aware of the fact that the disadvantaged owners or insurance companies would be unhappy about losing value?
And would you be aware of the likelihood that they would tell their friends what happened?
Robbie Ferron
Dear Editor,
While the Minister [Christophe Emmanuel – Ed.] challenges the individual members of the GEBE supervisory board to explain to the people of St. Maarten why they did not sign the concession agreement I would also like to lay a challenge before the Minister to explain to the people his reasoning for turning down the request from GEBE for a letter of no objection in order for GEBE to purchase a parcel of land at Porto Cupecoy which land would have been used to construct a 4,000 cubic meter water storage tank right next to the water production facilities in Cupecoy.
The area that was used in the past at the Mullet Bay was rented and here GEBE had the opportunity to own the property thus being able to capitalize its investment and the technical and financial analysis done by GEBE vs GEBE owning the property in the long run would have saved money to the consumers.
Because of the refusal of the Minister to give permission to purchase the land, having to build the tanks on the former Mullet Bay property this venture will cost the company an additional 2 million guilders in having to run two 12 inch water lines along the complete trajectory from the production facilities at Cupecoy to the Mullet tank and a return line from the board tank back down to feed the consumers their need for water supply as according to WHO standards water should not be sent directly to the consumer but should be stored and treated and thereafter distributed.
I wonder who were the powers that be that influenced his decision making on this matter. Was it in the interest of the same powers that be or the interest of the community guaranteeing stable, safe and reliable water according to World Health Organization standards?
Roy R. Marlin
Former chairman and member GEBE supervisory board of directors
Dear Editor,
St. Maarten passenger-bus owners must buy buses with higher roof-top so that passengers can walk through in and out the buses freely.
The numbers on the number plates of the vehicles are too small and invisible with the number plate covers on. Instead of five long figures big capital letters should be added on the number plates.
Cuthbert Bannis
Dear Editor,
The statement by the VROMI Minister Christopher Emmanuel regarding the landfill and his solution for this public hazard has done nothing to convince the public that all is well with the umpteen plan for a Waste-to-Energy plant on St. Maarten. This plan should allegedly also include the clearing of the dump site in the Salt Pond.
What is questionable is the manner that the decision-making in GEBE has been described by the Minister. On a decision such as this, namely the signing of a power purchase agreement, the Minister alleges that GEBE board members have to individually affix their signatures to this document.
Normally, board decisions are taken in board meetings. And a majority vote is carried. Even more relevant is the question: is this a board’s responsibility or that of management? And what is management’s view on the matter? What has management advised the board?
That an MOU has been signed between Enviro Green and the VROMI minister and now will be put to the Council of Ministers seems for such a crucial project to be putting the cart in front of the horse. Who are the lawyers who advised the country on this project? What was their advice?
I should note here that the company in question upon my request has consented to present its plan to the Parliament of St. Maarten.
On an unrelated note, the VROMI Minister has declined the invitation from Parliament to meet on the matter of the Simpson Bay Lagoon clean-up and salvage operations.
Sarah Wescot-Williams
Leader, Democratic Party (DP)
