Today I am publishing a piece written by my sister Sarah George: it speaks about some of the impacts we can expect from the Chinese development project our government in Saint Lucia has signed away our rights to.This project is supported by many in Vieux Fort where jobs are particularly scarce - Saint Lucia has over 22% unemployment and a lot of underemployment, so it's understandable that this glitzy mega-development seems like a diamond being handed to the people. However many of us understand that though the needs of the people in Vieux Fort are long overdue for attention, a project such as this comes with a price-tag that we can't afford and the damage it will inflict will be a cost that has far reaching effects - not just environmental, but on our sovereignty and safety. And that the development - the benefits - will overwhelmingly be for foreigners (including those hundreds who will be granted citizenship as part of this deal) Our government has not consulted the people who voted for them, far from it, they have lied to the people, indicating environmentally protected areas would not be included while behind closed doors they signed away those same areas...to say I and many others are upset over this is an understatement - we are desperately trying to find ways to stop this catastrophe - it seems our laws, our signed international conventions, declarations etc, do not protect us. If you can help - please do - we need expertise, power and international attention. There is a petition to save the Maria Islands which is linked at the end - please, if you think we need a better alternative to this development, at least sign and if you have other means, please message - there is also a facebook group for campaigners https://www.facebook.com/helensdefenders/
Now my sister's article:
A Causeway for Concern
By: Sarah N. George
I feel that I must voice my opinion on the
recently unveiled Phase II proposals for the DSH Pearl of the Caribbean development. I am a St Lucian marine biologist by
training, and a fisheries and marine management specialist by expertise. I can bring to the debate over 30 years’
experience working in the interest of national development as a member of the
Fisheries Department and also with the OPAAL project through which the
Government of Saint Lucia established the Point Sable Environmental Protection
Area (PSEPA) under the Physical Planning and Development Act. This valuable
site extends from Moule-a-Chique in the south to Pointe de Caille (just north
of Savannes Bay), and includes Maria Islands, and the Savannes Bay and Mankoté
Mangroves as well as the reef around Maria Islands as legally-declared Marine
Reserves (with the area being designated as a RAMSAR site of international
importance).
Given the valuable resources and ecological
roles of the PSEPA and the way these support both existing and potential
economic sectors and livelihoods, it is important that all Saint Lucians
appreciate what will be some of the likely short and long term effects of
building a causeway from the shoreline out to Maria Islands.
Smothering
of critical marine habitats and endangering livelihoods
First, let’s consider the effects of a
causeway on marine resources and essential ecosystem services along our
southeast coast. Here we have Saint
Lucia’s largest remaining area supporting three critical tropical marine
habitats: mangroves, seagrass beds
and coral reefs; all functioning together in an interdependent way. These three habitats are valued world-wide as
the basis for productive tropical marine food webs and coastal fisheries. They are also the source of the area’s clear
and calm coastal waters which allow the reef and seagrass to thrive and give us
valuable space for local and tourist recreation. The PSEPA sustains some of our most important
nursery and breeding grounds for marine fish species, for conch, sea urchins,
lobster, crabs, and is also a key site for sea moss cultivation.
Creating a causeway in this area will end
up burying large areas of the reef and seagrass habitats, resulting in loss of
vital nursery, breeding and coastal fisheries grounds. As happened when Pigeon Island causeway was
built, the reclamation work involved in creating a causeway ends up smothering
any reef or seagrass habitat within the boundaries of the causeway and in
adjacent areas. It also causes long-term
sedimentation and reduced water clarity over a large area in and around the
works because fine silt particles generated by the reclamation process remain
suspended and carried around by waves and currents for many, many years. Any settled silt is also easily re-suspended
by annual storms and is added to by erosion that will naturally occur on and
around the causeway as the sea battles against this artificial barrier placed
in its way.
Beach
loss and erosion along the coast
Another serious effect of placing a
causeway between an area of mainland and offshore islands is the disruption it
causes to the natural process of littoral drift (or “longshore drift”) which normally pushes
sand gradually over great distances along the shoreline. This is how beaches are created and
maintained by nature. A beach forms in a
location where the particular shape and topography of the shoreline, the
direction and nature of the prevailing wave action, and size and weight of sand
particles available to the area all suit the formation of a particular size and
type of beach in that specific site.
Longshore drift is driven by the prevailing wave direction, which feeds
a continual supply of sand as beach material moves from place to place as part
of this natural process. These large-scale nearshore dynamics determine which
parts of our shoreline get eroded and which become built up with sand
deposits. A causeway not only blocks
the littoral drift and thus starves all the beaches downward of it, but also
causes oncoming waves to be deflected around the structure, and this ends up
increasing the levels of erosion in some places along the nearby coast, while
causing others to become silted up over time.
Saint Lucia’s experience with the Pigeon
Island Causeway and the Choiseul Fisheries Project has shown us, first hand,
the massive and costly problems caused when such artificial barriers interfere
with natural nearshore dynamics.
Significant loss of beachfront occurred for many years at Pigeon Island,
in front of Gros Islet, and in the southern part of Rodney Bay. None of these areas have regained their
former beach volumes, despite efforts to put in place costly structures along
the shoreline (seawalls, groynes, gabion baskets) aimed at preventing further
erosion and protecting vulnerable coastal structures against storm damage. Even replenishing beaches artificially has
proven costly and short-lived as the sea constantly reclaims the added material
to regain the natural balance of the area.
The loss of beach front caused significant
loss of recreational space and caused collapse of what was a vibrant seine
fishery in the Gros Islet area. The loss
of healthy reef and seagrass habitat in Rodney Bay also led to a decline in
other forms of fishing due to an overall loss of fish habitat. In the case of Choiseul, changes caused in
the nearshore wave direction and longshore sand movement by construction of the fishing port has led to
continual trapping of silt and creation of stagnant waters within the
port. The walls of the “pond” inside the port
prevent sand from moving along the shore or moving back out to sea. Money has to be spent to dredge the port, with
no effective long-term solution found. Fishers
remain frustrated and without a properly functioning port.
As part of the EIA process or during the
project development stage of developments such as these, hydrological studies
are usually done in the proposed site, funded by the investors. These try to assess the nearshore dynamics
of the area and factor this information into the way the reclamation and the
proposed facility are designed. However,
because coastal dynamics naturally fluctuate both seasonally and from year to
year, and doing extensive studies is both costly and time consuming, such
studies usually only provide a snap-shot of what is really going on. More often than not, they fail to accurately
anticipate or prevent serious coastal impacts and long-term issues caused by
the reclamation and the physical structures once in place.
Creating
a coastal marine desert
The recently released concept for Phase II
of the DSH development shows a large marine space becoming “semi-enclosed” by
the causeway - essentially establishing a large artificial bay. On the surface, this may seem like a benefit
(i.e., new calm and physically protected coastal space for use in recreation or
as a sheltered harbour). However, the
causeway construction will tend to cause reduced water quality in the enclosed
area, creating a “semi-stagnant” coastal marine space.
Presently, a wide range of species
including seagrasses and seamoss, coral reef fishes, lobsters and various hard
corals are able to set up and thrive in the well- oxygenated, clear waters of
the southeast coast. If part of the bay
becomes enclosed by the causeway, resources in the area become stressed by
poorer water quality, high silt loads, and reduced flushing. Inevitably, natural runoff from land will add
silt and other chemicals to this space, and the causeway would act as a barrier
reducing the rate at which they can be removed by wave action or wider coastal
circulation. These enclosed waters will
also become less safe for sea bathing and water-sports. We saw these sorts of problems in Rodney Bay
after the causeway was built: declining water quality, higher sediment load
within the bay, and die-off of seagrass, corals, fish and invertebrate
populations. This led to a loss of coastal fishpot and seine fisheries, and
loss of livelihood potential for local, small-scale businesses which could have
developed to provide visitors with opportunities for high-quality snorkelling,
diving, glass-bottom boating within the wider bay. As is too often the case, a focus on the
needs of large scale developments gets priority over local, smaller-scale but
more sustainable enterprises that could keep a significant part of the tourism
product and earnings in the hands and under the control of Saint Lucians.
Threat
to the Maria Island endemics
Finally, let’s look at one of the site’s
smallest natural assets, yet one highly at risk in light of the proposed
causeway: our extremely rare endemic species, the Saint Lucia whiptail lizard (Cnemidophorus vanzoi) and the Saint
Lucia worm snake (Leptotyphlops breuli),
with populations found nowhere else in the world except on Maria Islands. These endemics exist on the two tiny islets
because of the unique natural environment and the physical isolation the site
has provided over hundreds of thousands of years. These factors have allowed the endemic
species to evolve, adapt and survive there – and only there. The fact that an adequate stretch of sea
separates the islets from the main coast of Saint Lucia has managed to prevent
other animals and disease agents from getting to these rare endemics and
destroying their eggs, their young or the adults. Other rare endemic species around the world
have been created by such physical isolation.
A causeway would remove this essential
element of isolation. Despite the
best efforts of the Forestry Department and the National Trust to prevent other
species becoming a threat, our rare Maria Islands endemics would be at severe
risk of predation, disease and eventual extinction in the wild. As a result, we would fail to safeguard some
of the world’s rarest species and also fail in our commitments to international
agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity, among others.
Are
causeways always a bad thing?
Causeways have been built in many places
for many reasons and with varying effects on the natural environment. When a causeway or similar land reclamation
project is built in an area where the marine system is a naturally dynamic,
high-silt environment such as at the mouth of a large river system (like the
Mississippi) or in an exposed, rough shoreline, they may not have a significant
effect on existing species or habitats since the particular species present
will already be those best suited to such turbid and dynamic environments. In other cases, causeways have been built
suspended above the sea, such as the road built to connect Prince Edward Island
to mainland Canada. This raised
structure is designed to reduce the level of physical disturbance to the seabed
and disruption of wave action and littoral drift. But we must recognise that our southeast
coast is not a high-silt, unstable
environment, nor is the proposed causeway merely to be the base for a suspended
road or one that will minimise impacts on natural coastal processes or our
coastal marine habitats. Our sensitive
nearshore environment around Saint Lucia is not a suitable place for a
causeway.
Moving
Forward
I very much recognise the urgent need for
us to develop job opportunities, sustainable livelihoods and better services
for communities of the south, and that the outstanding natural beauty, coastal
marine assets and available land in the south means that that tourism is going
to be a major element in such development.
But as a country we must be able to strike a healthy balance that can
provide viable, sustainable social and economic progress for all Saint Lucians
while safeguarding our environmental assets.
Unlike larger countries such as the USA, Canada or China, Saint Lucia’s
tiny size means that we have no room for environmental error; no room for
easily moving from an environmental mistake to take up a “Plan B”.
The way forward in the case of the DSH
project must be some form of compromise, and such compromise must be rooted in
the long-term interest of Saint Lucia over and above any short-term interests
driven by political debate or external interests. While the proposed project
seems at first glance to be full of the promises of jobs for everyone, we must
consider the damage it can do to our resource base and consider hidden costs
that can arise as we compromise existing livelihoods and the quality of our environment. We must take the time and care to consider other
options, ones that would result in safer, sounder development for the south.
Whether you consider yourself UWP, SLP or
no “P” at all, if you truly care about the future of Saint Lucia, I hope you
can agree that the compromise we reach for development in the south must not
include a causeway.
The No causeway to Maria Islands Petition can be found at:
Further
Reading
The following documents, which you can
access via the internet, may help you get a greater understanding of the issues
discussed here. I have found that information, in-depth
consultation, and then careful consideration
bring wisdom, and wisdom provides the foundation for meaningful,
equitable progress.
A case
study of effects of the Pigeon Island Causeway: http://www.irf.org/eiacasestudy_failure_rodneybay_stlucia_op-45a/ (Ed Towle, 1985).
Saint Lucia
National Trust information page on the Point Sable Environmental Protection
Area:
A report on the
values and perceptions of the Pointe Sable Environmental Protection Area:
BIO
Sarah George worked with the Department of Fisheries in Saint Lucia from 1982 and 2012. She was first a Fisheries Assistant, then a Fisheries Biologist, and ultimately served as Deputy Chief Fisheries Officer and finally as Chief Fisheries Officer at the Department. From 2005 to 2009, she was assigned to the Environmental and Sustainable Development Unit of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). She worked with the OECS Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods Project (OPAAL) as Technical Expert and later as Project Coordinator. Sarah has also served on a Marine Protected Areas Expert Working Group for the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Board of the Soufriere Marine Management Area, and a number of other local, regional and international initiatives aimed at sustainable fisheries development and marine management.
