Letter of the Day | Protecting our environment victory or another drawn-out battle? 

THE EDITOR, Madam:

I was driving to Montego Bay recently and passed through Discovery Bay, I found myself rejoicing over the ruling of the Constitutional Court regarding the Dry Harbour Mountains. When the ruling finally came, it awakened something deeper than legal interest. It touched the conscience.

This was not a small backyard activity, but a project with potential implications for the mountain, water systems, nearby communities, and Jamaica’s ecological heritage.

The Dry Harbour Mountains are a part of Jamaica’s ecological heritage, connected to communities, water systems, natural beauty, and future generations. The Constitutional Court has spoken in defence of environmental rights, and the 70 conditions and mitigation measures attached to the project suggest that the risks were never minor.  

Psalm 24:1 declares, “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it.” That is a word not only for church-goers, but for all who hold power, sign permits, approve projects, and shape the future of this country. We are not owners who may do as we please with the natural resources of this land. We are stewards who must act with reverence, restraint, and accountability.

I am not against development. Jamaica needs investments. jobs, and growth. However, development must not become a polite word for environmental devastation. 

It is said that much of the flooding, erosion, and environmental damage is the result of years of poor stewardship, careless planning, and the failure to respect the natural systems God has entrusted to us.

Now, we hear the matter may be appealed. Were the Constitutional Court judges wrong? Were the environmental concerns overstated? Were the experts mistaken? And who will pay for this appeal, the developer or the taxpayers of Jamaica?

The prime minister has spoken often about environmental protection. That is commendable. It is, therefore, especially troubling that a government with a Ministry of Water, Environment and Climate Change, and with agencies established to protect the environment, would now appear ready to appeal a ruling that seems to uphold the very principles those institutions exist to defend.

If there is to be an appeal, the government must explain clearly why taxpayers’ resources should be used to challenge a ruling that appears to protect citizens, communities, and the environment, and why such an appeal serves the national interest rather than merely the interest of a developer.

ROY NOTICE  

Administrative Bishop 

New Testament Church of God - Jamaica