The meeting was well attended by approximately 200 people. Key public and private sector agencies were represented as well as important individuals – these included JAMPRO, Tankweld, Northern Jamaica Conservation Association (NJCA), Jamaica Environment Trust (JET), Montego Bay Marine Park (MBMP), National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), Runaway Bay Craft Vendors’ Association, Jamaica Tourist Board, Tourism Product Development Co. (TPDCo), Runaway Bay HEART Academy, Water Resources Authority (WRA), Jamaica Solar Energy Association, National Land Agency (NLA), Mayor Giscombe from St. Ann’s Bay, the Planning Institute of Jamaica, St. Ann Parish Council, St. Ann Chamber of Commerce. This list is not necessarily complete – these agencies were either identified by the Chairperson or identified when their representatives spoke.

The meeting started at 4.30 pm, following difficulties with the audio visual equipment.

Not everyone could be accommodated in the room and there was no provision for a microphone for the public, so everyone who wished to participate had to go to the front.

Formal presentations were far too lengthy – the public was only allowed to participate at the end, at roughly 6.40 pm – two hours and forty minutes after the scheduled start time. Presentations included unnecessary architectural details from one of the architectural firms involved, what amounted to a commercial from the Project Manager for the Piñero Group, and even the environmental information was given at unnecessary length in two separate presentations from the representative of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) consultants, Peter Reeson from Environmental Solutions Ltd. (ESL).

By the time the public was asked to participate, many people had left. The Chairperson, Mrs. Pauline Haughton, Chairman of the St. Ann Chamber of Commerce, was inclined to attempt to cut short the interventions of the public, but allow the responses from representatives of tourism and GOJ to go on at length.

Public meetings to discuss EIAs should include a single presentation on the environmental impacts of the particular project of no more than 40 minutes and the rest of the time should be allowed for a full and frank discussion, with the public being given every possible opportunity to state their concerns. This is something NEPA could and should insist upon.

Specific Issues

JET and NJCA raise the following concerns about what emerged at the public meeting:-

• Invitation of the Piñero Group by the Jamaican Government

In the presentation by Mr. Jesus Castellanos, the Project Manager for the Piñero Group, it was made clear that the Piñero Group development at Pear Tree Bottom was conceived at the express invitation of the Jamaican government. JET and NJCA are concerned that a proper assessment of natural resources as well as physical and social infrastructure should be done before such invitations are issued. In other words, a strategic assessment of the carrying capacity of the area for the type and scale of tourism development is necessary in advance of outreach to investors.

• Lack of information and community participation

JET and NJCA wish to point out that the Ten-Year Master Plan for Sustainable Tourism states that “local communities must play a major role in deciding what the tourism product in their communities should be, and in developing and managing that product.” NJCA mentioned that since 2003 when the project was announced in the newspapers, the St. Ann Parish Development Committee has been seeking information about it from the Ministry of Development, to no avail. We hope that the input from this Public Hearing and the EIA process in general will help to shape NEPA’s decision and the outcome in general.

• The overall appropriateness of a 1,900-room complex in an area of nationally and internationally significant natural resources

The government has a duty to manage and protect Jamaica’s natural resources. It would be irresponsible to allow any kind of development that does not make the best use of these outstanding assets while ensuring their protection for science, education, and biodiversity conservation.

• The availability of data

Mr. Reeson said that an EIA was not an academic study and had to use existing data. JET and NJCA do not agree with this – an EIA must collect relevant data if there is no data available. How else will good decisions be taken?

• Existing degradation of the site

Mr. Reeson pointed out the degradation that had already taken place at the site, with the implication that since this had already happened, the site was no longer pristine and the potential damage presented by the new development was therefore of lesser concern. JET and NJCA strongly oppose this view – the damage caused to the Pear Tree Bottom site was as a result of lax regulation from environmental authorities. We cannot have a situation where poor management resulting in environmental degradation is considered a justification for increased environmental degradation.

• Lack of clarity about some facts presented

Mr. Reeson said the status of the fishing beach was uncertain; some members of the public questioned this, but were not allowed to make their points at the time. Mr. Reeson said the site was subject to squatting and the existence of pit latrines; this was also disputed. Mr. Reeson said that ‘it was not noted’ that the beach was a nesting beach for sea turtles, and this, too was contradicted. These issues need to be clarified.

• Lack of enforcement; failure to comply with EIA recommendations during both construction and operational phases

The EIA presentation did not adequately address one of JET and NJCA’s main concerns – the likely failure of various government agencies to ensure compliance with the EIA and environmental permits. Examples of this happening on other projects are too numerous to mention.

• Track record of contractor

Mr. Reeson made the point that the contractor should have a good environmental track record. In addition, the construction contracts must include suitable sanctions for breaches which are enforced. JET and NJCA agree – but are concerned that this will not in fact occur.

• Provision of adequate infrastructure/squatting/vending

Mr. Reeson said these concerns were real ones, but were not the responsibility of the developer. The public had significant concerns about the practice of allowing large-scale hotel development in advance of proper infrastructural planning. The representative from the Planning Institute advised that a study had recently been concluded on the infrastructural needs of the north coast, in view of the hotel developments planned. However, as the hotels are in various stages of construction and approval, JET and NJCA thinks this makes a mockery of the word “planning.” In response to the repeated concerns about the lack of infrastructure, Mr. Dennis Morrison, Chairman of the Jamaica Tourist Board, said that he would convene ‘a meeting’ to address this issue. Mrs. Haughton then asked the audience to defer all comments on infrastructure as they would be dealt with at the promised meeting. In this way, one of the most critical issues of the development was neatly side-stepped by both the developers and the Government.

(10)Cumulative Impacts

Mr. Reeson conceded that this is the major concern, as Pear Tree Bottom is only one of a series of large-scale developments. He said explicitly that the north coast is in need of proper zoning with due consideration for appropriate scale of projects. In responding to this particular issue, Mr. Dennis Morrison said that the Tourism Master Plan had slated “the area” for tourism development. JET and NJCA would like to know how the Tourism Master Plan addresses (a) the value and protection of natural resources along the north coast and the ecosystem services they provide; (b) the provision of access by the public to the Jamaican coastline; (c) the plan for a system of protected areas for Jamaica

This summary of some of the issues raised at the public meeting is compiled and presented to the environmental impact assessments consultants, Environmental Solutions Ltd., the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), JAMPRO, the Jamaica Tourist Board and the general public. JET and NJCA respectfully request that the issues raised above as well as those raised in the critique of the EIA already submitted to NEPA be thoroughly considered by decision-makers before granting approval for the Bahia Principe Resort Development at Pear Tree Bottom.

Jamaica Environment Trust
Northern Jamaica Conservation Association
May 2 nd, 2005