I was interested to read Jason Smith’s May 26 special report, “Tourism season gets mixed reviews.” The article reported figures on last year’s tourist arrival volume from January through October. There was an apparent year-on-year increase of 8.6 percent, to a total of 275,392, during that time period. Presumably, this indicates that overnight tourist arrivals in the same period of 2009 were in the order of 252,000. Note that the period covered includes all but two weeks of the so-called “high season.”
When the existing incinerator was designed in 1987, the territory’s demographics allowed for an annual tourist volume of about 300,000 visitors per year. These visitors were thought to be roughly evenly divided between land-borne and water-borne (yacht charters). At the time the incinerator was commissioned, the total waste volume was estimated at 30 to 35 tonnes per day, a figure that was more or less confirmed by the fact that waste receipts as measured by the waste scale averaged about 33 tonnes per day during the high tourist season and about 27 tonnes per day during the “off-season.” With a capacity of 40 tonnes per day, the incinerator was operated four and a half to five days per week and shut down when there was no adequate waste supply.
Over the period 1994 to about 2000, the waste volume increased to a point where the incinerator, operating full time, was overloaded, and a backlog of unburned waste developed. At this point in time, the purchase of a new, larger incinerator was first proposed. The size chosen was 100 tonnes per day, apparently without considering the probable effect of a combined incineration capacity of 140 tonnes per day. There was no evident intent to shut down the old unit.
It is a known design fact that incinerators of this type function properly only when burning between 90 and 110 percent of rated capacity. Outside those limits, temperature control, particularly of the lower chamber, becomes highly difficult. Reports commissioned by the Solid Waste Department recommended a new incinerator with a rated capacity of 60 tonnes per day, giving a combined capacity of 100 tonnes per day. These reports were not implemented.
Tourism and waste
It is interesting to note the real effect of tourism on the waste volume received by the incinerator. After 9/11, the incinerator, which had been overloaded, was forced to shut down for lack of waste, indicating a reduction of perhaps 25 tonnes per day to the 25-tonne-per-day level. As tourism recovered, the waste volumes built up again — an effect that was emphasised by the concurrent population increase on Tortola.
Now, the installation of the new incinerator remains incomplete and open burning continues. It was interesting to note the minister’s claim that the new unit was “scheduled for inspection” at the beginning of May. Apparently this plan failed, since the facility has yet to start up.
It has been claimed that projects in the Caribbean of any type take, on average, seven years from inception (the study stage) to completion. If that is the case, the new incinerator, purchased in mid-2003, is setting new records for slow progress.
‘Other matters’
But the purpose of this letter is really to examine the tourist figures with reference to other matters. If it is assumed that 70 percent of overnight tourists arrive during the high season and, given the increase of a compound percentage of three to four percent annually, one might expect the current tourist volume during the high season to increase by roughly 10,000 per year. If this figure is correct (and this may be dependent on how quickly the United States economy grows), then by 2015, the tourist arrival figures might reach 315,000. Of these, some 220,500 might be expected to arrive during the so-called “high season.” Presumably, 40 percent of these will arrive by ferry from St. Thomas and 60 percent by air to Beef Island. The economics of air travel to the VI are not immediately apparent to arriving tourists.
Based on recent observations of traffic at the West End ferry dock, the tourist traffic entering through West End might amount to 25 percent of the total arriving by ferry, with the balance using the direct ferry services from St. Thomas to Road Town. The following math applies:
• Total arriving by ferry: 40 percent of 220,500, or 88,200.
• Total arriving by ferry to West End: 25 percent of 88,200, or 22,050, during the period January to October.
• Assuming 300 days in the period, the average per day is about 75 tourists to West End.
• Assuming tourists make up 50 percent of traffic, total average arrivals at West End (including residents) would be a maximum of 150 per day.
• Assuming that arrivals and departures are balanced, the average daily traffic through West End could be expected to be in the order of 300 per day — but only half of these need to be processed through customs and immigration.
The passenger load suggested as a design basis by the BVI Ports Authority is 30,000 per month, or 1,000 per day. On the basis of the above estimate for the high season, this is about three times too high. In the low season, then, the load designed for may be in excess of three times too high!
West End arrivals
And, according to queries of West End customs officers, the current tourist volume is now much less than it was in high season. And this is reflected by the fact that the two main ferry companies that routinely use West End are currently running much-abbreviated schedules to both Red Hook and Charlotte Amalie. And the new fast catamarans direct between Charlotte Amalie and Road Town may be cutting into the West End traffic even further.
Two conclusions can be drawn:
1. The efforts of the BVI Tourist Board to increase tourism with the VI as a destination of choice have not been notably successful since 9/11. Less than 55 percent occupancy in VI hotels is not encouraging!
2. Based on published tourist figures and observations, the proposed West End ferry terminal, in its current form, cannot be justified. A more modest new structure, possibly using much of the existing facilities, is apparently indicated.
3. Unless the BVITB takes steps to make the undoubted attractions of the VI more acceptable to tourists, the tourist industry — which is in direct competition with the rest of the Caribbean — will probably not grow as it might.