• Proposed facility to prevent species wipe-out

• Atlantis, Disney fund team with conservationists

• Cabinet paper approval awaited for its advance

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

Conservationists are partnering with Atlantis and Disney to create a “coral reef gene bank” to save several Bahamian species in danger of being wiped out by disease, Tribune Business can reveal.

Dr Craig Dahlgren, executive director of the Perry Institute for Marine Science, which is leading the fight against the Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease (SCTLD), said the tie-up with the two leading tourism brands will establish a facility where coral “can be removed from harm’s way”, grown and bred to save certain types from being extinct.

He added, though, that the development was awaiting approval from the Davis administration, with a Cabinet paper on the subject supposed to have been submitted to the Government’s highest decision-making body earlier in 2022. Its fate is presently unclear, and could not be determined yesterday.

“The other thing we are waiting for in relation to this disease is we are partnering with Atlantis and the Disney Conservation Fund to develop a coral genetic resource facility; a living gene bank of coral reef,” Dr Dahlgren told this newspaper.

“The disease is likely to drive some species of coral to extinction if we don’t act quickly. We do have the funding and support from Atlantis to develop that facility. We’re waiting for a Cabinet paper to be approved that will result in the cost to Atlantis and the Government for that to happen.”

Dr Dahlgren last week described Stony Coral Disease as the equivalent of “COVID or Ebola” for coral, adding that it was threatening to do in five years what climate change will impose in 20-30. Alluding to its likely impact on the Bahamian tourism, dive and fisheries industries, he said this nation has to look no further than Florida where at least one coral species has already become extinct in the wild.

“We do have permits to assess and continue to treat it,” Dr Dahlgren said of the disease. “But we can’t collect corals, rescue them from harm’s way and bring them into a facility. That’s what the Cabinet paper [is about]. It was supposed to be submitted earlier this year.” He added that he was unsure how far the initiative had progressed, and did not provide any figures for how much investment, and how many jobs, will be required by the planned “coral gene bank”.

Asserting that The Bahamas must be under no illusions about the threat posed by Stony Coral Disease, the Perry Institute for Marine Science chief last week lamented that the year-long hold-up in obtaining permits to examine and treat the disease had been “extremely costly” as it had spread beyond New Providence and Grand Bahama to five different Bahamian islands in that time.

Other research scientists and conservationists have blamed the permit delays, said to have brought science and environmental exploration in The Bahamas to a near-standstill over the past 12 months, on the former Minnis administration’s passage and implementation of the Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge Act on April 1, 2021. It introduced a new approvals system that the industry says has created little more than a bureaucratic bottleneck.

Dr Nick Higgs, head of research and innovation at Cape Eleuthera Institute - the Island School, told Tribune Business that the legislation was designed to address “a non-existent problem” - that of The Bahamas’ genetic and biological resources being plundered by foreign, commercial exploration companies for potential multi-million profits with this country earning not a single cent for such activities.

While Romauld Ferreira, the former environment minister who shepherded the Act into law, on Monday said this problem was well-known, Dr Higgs said the Government had “never presented any evidence, other than anecdotal why this is necessary”. However, both he and the former minister agree that the solution lies in “carving out” non-profits, conservationists, Bahamians and students from the enhanced due diligence that should be reserved for commercial researchers.

“We’ve made recommendations to the Attorney General’s Office, who have been keen to fix this problem,” Dr Higgs explained to this newspaper. “The recommendations, in short, are to focus on the high-risk research and to take conservation-based science and non-profit science out of the equation, simplify the process and remove these unconscionable liabilities from what is essentially a national service.

“We should be focused on commercial companies doing bio-prospecting. We said from the start let’s ease your work load and help you focus on the ones that need scrutiny. But the people who are being impacted are all these non-profit conservation scientists trying to do nature science. Until these permits come through, nothing can be done legally. We have to work with the reality. Whatever the intent, we’ve had no legal basis to do research for a year.”

The “liabilities” referred to by Dr Higgs are the sanctions, fines and penalties faced by researchers who proceed to conduct their work without the necessary permits. “The way the law is written, the liabilities are off the scale; no one can accept them,” he added. As an example, he cited a Bahamian PhD student whose university faced a $7m “liability” if she proceeded with research without the required approval - an exposure that would require the state governor’s sign-off.

In addition, the Island School chief said the Act also imposed obstacles for scientists seeking to publish their research and findings to a wider audience, as it stipulates nothing should happen without the Government’s authorisation and tries to restrict information sharing to just those persons involved with the project.

Recalling how someone was last year told they could not publish an underwater photo, Dr Higgs said: “As a Bahamian, the constitution explicitly allows freedom of communication and information sharing. The key thing is this whole Bill goes against trends in science of openness and the communication of information. This Act shuts us down from sharing and communication of information....

“I want the director [of the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection] to succeed. I want the Government of The Bahamas to be managing their resources properly, but we have to do this co-operatively and, at the moment, I don’t feel we have that. Until this legislation is changed nothing is going to happen.”

Warning that there were “very real consequences” for the Stony Coral Disease fight and protection of endangered species as a result, Dr Higgs said he had left a previous posting in the UK because “I wanted to come back to The Bahamas to build science capacity in the country, and this is what I am faced with?”

He added that his ambition had been to establish a “Bahamian science hub”, especially with increasing numbers of students going into environmental science, but added that both himself and their efforts are now being frustrated by the current permit hold-up.

Dr Higgs also told Tribune Business that the difficulties were being worsened by the absence of any regulations, rules and guidelines to accompany the Act. “When I ask questions I get different answers,” he said, pointing in particular to the fee structure.

He explained that, at present, the DEPP has just two fee categories - for Bahamian students and research scientists. “They’re proposing to charge fees to students in the hundreds of dollars,” Dr Higgs said. “It’s beyond belief. To charge student scientists is unbelievable. They also said to me that there’s no category for Bahamian scientists. There’s no consideration for Bahamian scientists.”

He added that he received an auto-generated $1,500 fee for one permit application, only to be told that he did not have to pay that sum and would be charged a lesser amount. No invoice was issued, and then he was contacted by another official requesting he pay the initial fee. Dr Higgs also revealed that the DEPP’s invoices contained incorrect bank details. This was discovered when a bank returned the payment.

Describing the Act as “a power grab” by government officials, he added that it had only served to create another layer of bureaucracy and red tape when it came to science and research permits.