The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The long-running uncertainty over who has regulatory responsibility in Freeport “needs to be put to bed once and for all”, the Chamber of Commerce’s chairman urged yesterday.

Gowon Bowe told Tribune Business that the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, Freeport’s founding treaty, likely needed to be reformed and modernised to account for a world that was never envisaged in the 1950s and 1960s.

He added that with Grand Bahama well-represented in the Cabinet, the Bahamas now had to seize the opportunity to fully exploit the island’s economic potential for the benefit of the entire nation.

Reviving Grand Bahama’s economy featured prominently in yesterday’s ‘Speech from the Throne’, and Mr Bowe told Tribune Business: “I would hope that’s not seen as lip service.

“If we look at Grand Bahama in the wider context of the Bahamas, the infrastructure in Grand Bahama - not just Freeport but also outside - with the deep water harbour and opportunities for industrial development is tremendous.

“We need to start thinking, not only about New Providence, which we’ve focused on a lot, but how do we expand the economic pool to take advantage of the economic assets in Grand Bahama.”

With Grand Bahama supplying three Cabinet ministers and two Parliamentary secretaries, the Chamber chairman suggested the island was unlikely to enjoy a stronger advocacy group at the highest levels of government than the one it has now.

“Hopefully, they are able to advise the wider government that Grand Bahama can be exploited in a positive way for the benefit of the entire country,” Mr Bowe added.

Freeport is increasingly being viewed as the potential answer to many of the Bahamas’ economic and social problems, given the ability of its existing infrastructure and land mass to support a much larger population than it caters to at present.

Mr Bowe, though, said the uncertainty over who has regulatory responsibility for sectors such as energy, communications and web shop gaming in Freeport needs to be fully resolved if the city is to reach its economic potential.

“We need to solve once and for all who has legal and regulatory authority in Freeport,” he told Tribune Business. “The Cable Bahamas and URCA debacle has been going on for many years, and now there is the gaming industry.

“That needs to be put to bed once and for all so investors have certainty over the regulator and rules.”

The issue over whether the Government, Utilities Regulation and Competition Authority (URCA) or Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) have regulatory responsibility for certain industries in Freeport is coming to the fore once again.

Stephen Bereaux, URCA’s chief executive, recently told Tribune Business that both communications and energy providers, and the regulator itself, needed “a clear and consistent position across all sectors” as to whether URCA or the GBPA holds supervisory responsibility.

In the absence of any Supreme Court ruling on the issue, Mr Bereaux said URCA “has to assume” the authority and responsibility is its own.

He added that URCA was merely following the Communications Act, which mandated that it regulate the sector throughout the Bahamas - with no exemption or ‘carve out’ provided for Freeport.

URCA’s stance, though, conflicts with that of both Cable Bahamas and GB Power Company. They are arguing that Freeport’s founding treaty, the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, effectively usurps URCA’s statutes and makes the GBPA their primary regulator within the Port area.

Similar issues are at play in the web shop gaming industry, with Chances Games having initiated legal action to determine whether it is the GBPA - via the quasi-governmental powers bestowed by the Hawksbill Creek Agreement - or the Gaming Board that is its primary regulator.

Mr Bowe, meanwhile, suggested it was time to look at negotiating reforms to modernise Freeport’s founding treaty so that it kept up with the modern world’s demands.

“What was contemplated at the time of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement originally may no longer be applicable, and while there are a number of voices that say we have to abide by it, there needs to be a retooling,” he told Tribune Business.

“Is this right for the time? Do I need to revisit Agreement? Any transaction concluded 50 years ago, in the 1950s and 1960s, how could the drafters of this agreement know what’s taking place today.”