Peter Espeut | Lip service to sustainable development

For the last 40 years or so, every political party in Jamaica includes “environmental sustainability” or “sustainable development” in its public pre-election propaganda.  The manifesto of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) issued a few days before the 2025 General Elections was no different.  On page 49 is a section titled “Choose Stronger Environmental Sustainability”, and on the following page is the JLP’s vision for the Jamaican environment:

“We will continue to expand protection of our environment, recognizing that climate change affects out livelihoods, our island and our world.  This will ensure that our development will always be balanced and sustainable, ensuring that we choose Jamaica”.

And so the JLP has the jargon, but do they understand what they are committing themselves to?  Or are they just being speaky-spoky?

Note the word “balanced” in the JLP vision.  Constantly you hear that the goal is to BALANCE the concerns for environmental conservation and economic development, but when I hear this, I know the speaker does not understand the meaning of sustainable development.

What they mean is some sort of compromise, in other words, you protect some ecosystems and mash up others.  The trouble is, that this sort of “balancing” always involves mashing up something.  And over time, everything will get destroyed.  This kind of “balancing” heads in the direction of total environmental destruction; for what you protect today (to balance what you mash up), will come under the “development” hammer tomorrow, itself to be destroyed.

The concept of “sustainable development” – which is official Jamaican government policy – is quite different.  It means that no project should take place which will damage the natural environment.  Herein is the only “balance” that makes sense: we must have economic development AND environmental conservation both at the same time!  Any other approach will be unsustainable and unbalanced – eroding our natural environment in stages, until it all will be gone!

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution of Jamaica (Chapter III) confers on “everyone … the right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment free from the threat of injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological heritage” (13.3.l).  In other words, we Jamaican citizens have a constitutional right to expect the state to make sure that all projects are environmentally sustainable.

To guarantee (or at least support) this constitutional right, the Parliament has established by statute a technical agency [the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA)] to assess the sustainability of projects through an environmental impact assessment (EIA) process.  The NRCA has the power to refuse a permit for any unsustainable project, i.e. a project deemed to be damaging to natural ecosystems – flora and fauna.

There is no doubt that every project – even seriously damaging ones – may have a few positive outcomes: e.g. jobs for some and the creation of wealth for others.  The ethical principle of sustainable development implies that jobs and wealth creation – desirable as they are – must every time be trumped (oops!) by the demand that the natural environment be conserved.

The applicant to establish a limestone quarry atop the Bengal Cliffs in St. Ann is the Diamond Property Development Company, once owned by the late Vivian Blake, reputed founder of the Shower Posse, who died March 25, 2010; the company is now owned by Duane Blake and Valerie Williams, his son and wife.

Over the years in this column I have been critical of certain decisions of the NRCA permitting damaging and therefore environmentally unsustainable projects.  With the absence of transparency associated with political donations, one was never sure why some projects were permitted.

This is why the decision of the NRCA to refuse the application for quarrying to take place on the ecologically-sensitive Puerto Bueno Mountain atop the Bengal Cliffs in St. Ann, was a welcome ruling.  

The vegetation in the Puerto Bueno dry limestone forest provides habitat for a variety of rare and endangered species, including (according to the EIA) the Jamaican yellow snake (boa), various galliwasps and geckos, and 16 of the 30 bird species endemic to Jamaica.  These rare animals can never go back to reside on the mined-out limestone pits.

According to the Forestry Department: while the EIA “explores the impact of the quarrying operations, it does not propose feasible and effective mitigation measures geared towards minimizing the overall negative impact of the quarry on the forested area”.

In denying the permit to quarry in May 2020, the NRCA stated:

• A quarry of this nature, size, scale and intensity will have a deleterious effect on the environment in general and the surrounding uses.
• The impact and loss of biodiversity and natural resources in an area of environmental significance and unique biodiversity is irreplaceable.  

If the unique biodiversity which will be lost is “irreplaceable” then no mitigation is possible, and the NRCA was right to refuse the permit.  Not even 100 jobs can make up for that.

Then in July 2020 the portfolio minister – supposed to be the national environmentalist-in-chief – overturned the technical decision of the NRCA after an ex parte hearing; no interested parties were allowed to give evidence except those appealing the negative decision.  The (ir)responsible minister then instructed that the permit be granted

Jamaica has a monarchical form of government – not just because the British sovereign is our head of state – but because every government minister is a little monarch.  The Minister claims the power under the law to issue executive orders overturning certain decisions, without having to give any reason.

A number of local patriots challenged this process, bringing an action before Jamaica’s constitutional court, and last Friday the news came: THEY WON!  Big up to these great and honourable Jamaicans!  And to the Public Defender (at the time) who assisted with the case!

The court upheld our constitutional right.  

But the government has announced that they are going to appeal the decision of the constitutional court. 

Now we know that the manifesto was just paying lip service to sustainable development.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com