Peter Espeut
THERE IS much in our Jamaican way of life about which we have no consensus between the government, civil society and special interest groups; our new Prime Minister has set herself the challenge to build unity and consensus in this land, and so I would like to add this item to her agenda.
A question for you all: which portfolio has been shifted the most from one ministry to another over the last few years? I'll give you a hint: in recent years it has been partnered with Health, the Public Service, Tourism, Housing, Lands, and in this recent shuffle it is now partnered with Local Government. Of course I am talking about the environment portfolio.
It has been shifted and kicked around more than any other portfolio because there is no consensus on what to do with it. One might be tempted to think that it is unwanted, always ignored and left out like Cinderella! It was of such minimal importance that while discussing the new Cabinet last Friday neither the hosts nor the guests on the Breakfast Club even mouthed the word "environment".
Our new Prime Minister seems to have put values and attitudes firmly on the front-burner, and while doing so and talking about the importance of dealing with crime and education and creating jobs, never mentioned the word - nor indeed the concept - of the environment.
I'm sure she knows that different people's norms and values are in conflict. There is competition in the world of values and attitudes as to which are more important, and which are optional (that apply only when no higher value is involved). For some people, political expediency and campaign contributions and personal popularity are more important than the health of the environment; and for others committed to sustainable development, environmental concerns are at the very top of the agenda.
The Patterson administration time and again showed that it neither understood nor cared about 'sustainable' development; most recently the ONR has been allowed to get away with destroying mangroves in Portland Cottage and dredging without a permit; there are at least three illegal concrete batching plants operating without permits with impunity mostly on government projects; and JAMPRO is allowed to get away with something as illiterate as advertising a seminar on 'sustainable mining'. Lady P's administration has not done any better so far; what is the point of consensus and unity today if we bequeath a degraded and less habitable environment to our children and grandchildren?
Environmental concerns in this country have been made hostage to the agenda of the private sector. A merger is being attempted between the Town and Country Planning Authority and the NRCA, two of the agencies who must approve 'development' projects. The approval process must be 'quick', not necessarily thorough. Despite calling themselves 'corporate citizens', private companies do not vote; elected governments, however seem to be more concerned about their agenda than about the citizens who voted for them. Is this because private companies make campaign contributions? In some places this is called bribery - and corruption.
It is clear that the Hon. Mrs. Simpson Miller is aware of the problem of lack of integrity; she proposes to address this problem by appointing pastors to statutory boards - even in the chair - I suppose like the board of the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA). She is making a not so subtle critique of how these boards have been behaving over the last few years.
The composition of boards has always been a bone of contention. When you appoint the Banana Board you could never get away with appointing people who have a track record of destroying banana fields. When you appoint the Coffee Board you could never get away with appointing people who know nothing about the coffee industry. But when it comes to the board to oversee the environment they can get away with appointing engineers and miners and bird shooters and persons who define development in terms of concrete and steel; and maybe one token environmentalist.
Adding a clergyman will hardly provide the probity that is lacking.
And so environmentally, it has been a shaky start. Now the environment portfolio is married to local government. The parish councils are the other agency required to approve applications for "development" projects. Now it all comes under one umbrella. Whose interests are being served here?
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
