By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Bimini Bay’s developers have been advised that the Government’s pledge to create 10,000 new jobs means it is “unlikely to interrupt” their multi-million dollar investments despite pressure from environmental activists.

Resorts World, a subsidiary of Malaysian conglomerate Genting, has been advised by its Bahamian public relations and marketing consultants to position itself as “a saviour of the Bimini economy” to counter the negative publicity being received by the project.

The advice is contained in an August 2013 document entitled ‘A Public Relations and Communications Campaign for Resorts World Bimini, which appears to have been inadvertently e-mailed to Tribune Business and others by the developers.

The document has been prepared by a well-known Bahamian public relations consultancy which, although Tribune Business has chosen not to name it, has since been hired by Resorts World Bimini. It has already e-mailed several of their releases to this newspaper.

The ‘campaign strategy’ document is instructive for Bahamians, because it shows the tactics resort developers attracting controversy – warranted or not – will employ to win ‘hearts and minds’ and get public opinion on their side.

The document sent to Tribune Business notes how Resorts World Bimini’s public relations activities have failed to keep pace with criticisms of the project from the likes of Save the Bays and the Bimini Blue Coalition, with the latter drowning out the positive benefits of investment dollar and job creation.

Genting is undertaking a $150 million investment to construct two new hotels, including one with 350 rooms, plus the construction of a cruise ship jetty and other infrastructure and community improvements.

But, adding that the controversy surrounding Bimini Bay’s original developers, the Capo Group/RAV Bahamas, appeared to have attached itself to their successors, the marketing document said: “The entrance of the pioneer entities of Resorts World Bimini into the Bahamas resort development [market] has been attended by contention that has not fallen away.

“Furthermore, Resorts World Bimini’s self-directed communications on shore has not sufficiently kept pace with the company’s investments in Bimini or with the communications of opponents. Nor have the principals been sufficiently visible in the local business network.”

While none of these challenges was “insuperable”, meaning they could be overcome with a PR/marketing offensive, the Bimini Bay developers were advised: “There are vocal environmental groups, local and international, as well as respected Bahamians of various sectors, who are concerned about the nature of tourism development in the Bahamas.

“This is particularly so in relation to the Family Islands, where populations are small and ecosystems are fragile, water – except in Andros – limited, and utilities strained. They do not wish to see mega resort developments in these places, fearing significant negative environmental and social impact from intrusions such as large build outs, golf courses and an influx of visitors many times greater than the local population. Bimini Bay has attracted such notice.”

The PR/marketing advice also warned that foreign investors faced “xenophobia”, namely the belief that “Bahamians and their homeland will not share equitably in the success of these projects, particularly as regards jobs and promotions and leadership opportunities”.

And Bimini Bay’s advisers also warned Genting/Resorts World that the Bahamian government was “extremely sensitive to any vocal majority, and can be influenced thereby”.

Fortunately, the “prevailing economic and social conditions in Bimini” had left Genting/Resorts World with the advantage.

Given that the island was heavily dependent on tourism, the PR/marketing advisers said: “Given the depressed state of the Bimini economy before the advent of RAV Bahamas’ investment, the continuing recessionary climate in the Bahamas as a whole and considering its general election campaign promises to create 10,000 jobs, the present Bahamas government is likely not to do anything to interrupt the new employment streams represented by the existing Resorts World Bimini developments and those likely to be generated by the projects in progress.”

Pointing out that more Biminites had swung to support Bimini Bay as the years went by, the document suggested positioning Resorts World as “a saviour of the Bimini economy”. Other goals were positioning Resorts World in ‘Bahamian business networks’ and getting more private sector support for the project, plus dealing with concerns about environmental issues.

The advisers called on the developers to “preempt fresh criticism” on issues such as the golf course’s environmental impact; the Marine Protected Area; local jobs; and the employment of foreign workers.

To achieve the desired effect, Bimini Bay’s developers were urged to undertake the usual round of cocktail receptions, press conferences, speaking engagements and radio/TV appearances. Appearing on Bahamas at Sunrise could be a bit awkward, though, as one of the hosts, environmental attorney Romauld Ferreira, is the very man drawing up the Judicial Review challenge to the project.

Newspaper supplements and brochures extolling Genting’s investment and job creation were suggested, along with t-shirt giveaways featuring slogans such as ‘Resort World and me…. Good for Bimini’ and ‘Resort World and me… A great future for me and Bimini’.

Also suggested to engender goodwill was the donation of books to the Harry C. Moore Library and Information Centre at the College of the Bahamas (COB); sponsorship of educational contests and journal publications; and publishing a “small work” on Bimini for Bahamian schools.