Is anybody else bothered by the fact that there are droves of volunteers dressed in protective clothing trying to clean up the Gulf coast, trying to save the struggling wildlife?  Volunteers??  Bedraggled youngsters and sunburned retirees with tears in their eyes and oil on their hands?  Why aren’t these people being paid large sums of money?   This is no unavoidable, unpredictable natural disaster, this is a manmade catastrophe, a testament to greed, hubris, incompetence and probably corruption.  These two companies – wait for the decades long lawsuits between BP and TransOcean – each make massive profits.  BP’s first QUARTER 2010 replacement cost profit was US$5,598 million, a 135% increase over the same quarter the previous year.  http://www.bp.com/extendedgenericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7061409

A member of JET's Facebook page asked us to make a statement about the oil release in the Gulf of Mexico.  The facts are well known by now - an oil rig owned by TransOcean and operated by British Petroleum (BP) exploded on April 20th, 11 people are missing, presumed dead, and an enormous oil release threatens the marine environment and the coastline of three US states - possibly four, if the spill spreads to Florida.  Efforts to cap the release - 5,000 feet beneath the sea - have so far been futile, as have efforts to contain the oil within surface booms.  The usual hand wringing has been done,  elected officials (including President Obama) have toured the area, fishers are glum as they contemplate the devastation of their livelihoods, BP executives describe their heroic efforts to deal with an accident now being called "unprecedented," but prior to the event was deemed "well nigh impossible."  Now science can't tell us precisely where the spill will end up or when, what the short and long term impacts will be on wildlife or the environment, and even economists disagree about the effects on the oil price.  Certainty - oil rigs are perfectly safe, offshore drilling is essential for the US economy to reduce dependence on foreign oil - has suddenly become an opaque swirl of uncertainty, just like the spill itself, and the words "environmental catastrophe" seem apt.  

Ironically, President Obama had just indicated that offshore drilling in the US Atlantic would again be considered, as improvements in technology had greatly improved the safety of oil rigs.  This is true, but  as we are learning in the Gulf, it does not mean the risks were acceptable.  

This is the overwhelming lesson of this oil spill.  That there is no such thing as perfection where the endeavours of humans are concerned, that accidents will occur and they can be serious, that private sector companies will always play down the risks, will always make the argument that  technology renders the risks negligible.

President Obama has said BP will have to pay for the clean up.  Fine.  But will they have to pay for the loss of an ecosystem - assuming that to be the outcome - for the loss of livelihoods, a way of life, a place?  For this is what is at stake.                     

When we were planning this new website, we had to decide what photograph to use for our banner.  We want something that said: Jamaica, island, coastal, fragile, beautiful, unique, timeless…

We thought of Pellew Island.

At the time, we were engaged in efforts to keep Pellew in a natural state, as villas were to be constructed on the island.  So we wondered – what if we use a photo of Pellew and then it gets villa-ized?  Do we want a picture of a failure as our website banner?  Maybe not.  But then we thought – but Pellew is a symbol of what’s at stake – even if villas were to be built on it, it would still be good to have a photograph of how it was, to remind us of what was lost, what is still being lost, all over Jamaica.

For more than four years, JET has been working with many partners – groups and individuals – to save Pellew Island.  The task was rendered more difficult by its status as privately owned land – everyone concerned about the preservation of one of Jamaica’s iconic landmarks was also aware of the legal rights of property owners.    But we also felt – if Pellew cannot be saved so that future generations can continue to enjoy that wonderful swim to its small beach, to climb to the top of the island and look out over the coral reef that blesses the coastline with calm, shallow water – then what can be saved?  Where will be left for people to simply enjoy the gifts of nature, without fences, barriers or concrete?

Over the four years of the Pellew Island campaign, letters were written by many people, a YouTube video was posted by Marc Goodman, a petition with more than 2,000 signatures was completed and handed to the Member of Parliament, numerous Access to Information requests were made,  legal opinions were drafted about the question of beach access, the Environmental Impact Assessment was reviewed by ELAW and JET, and a public meeting was attended by many concerned citizens. 

Then we waited.  JET wrote month after month – what is the status?  We got the government version of – soon come.

And finally, this week we heard that the Portland Parish Council had turned down the application for villas on Pellew Island, citing concerns about unsuitable geology, vulnerability to storm surge and uncertainty about the sewage treatment system proposed.  The owner has a right of appeal, of course, and it is not certain whether the Parish Council’s decision will hold in the end.  Sometimes I think there is no such thing as an environmental victory – only victories for now.

A woman at the public meeting made an impassioned speech on Pellew’s behalf and it was recorded in the verbatim notes of the meeting.  This is what she had to say:

My name is Marion Sutton and I was born in and around San San…I grew up swimming at San San Bay, Monkey Island, Princess Nina island, whatever you call it; it is part of who I am, it nurtured me.  And I am moved beyond words about what is happening here.  How many people read the newspapers?  I only knew of this meeting…because I happen to have read the notice that was in …the paper.  And so you have here an extremely important discussion about what is supposedly an icon of Port Antonio, an icon of Portland, something which to us who are born here in Portland is part and parcel of who we are.  And just because as a people we do not have sufficient funds to purchase that icon, so we can have it, we can have people come in and say, well, it is private property.  And because it is private property, you feel that you can go ahead and make decisions which may have an impact in the long run, an impact which none of us, once it started, we can reverse.  The investigation that was put forth has been very honest, at least you have identified the fact that there are no guarantees, spills may occur, accidents may happen, in and around Pellew Island and Pellew Island itself may be damaged and that damage could be irreversible.  I am asking every one of us to think seriously about what is happening to Jamaica.  We have a moral obligation regardless of the ownership of private property to ensure that the beautiful island of Jamaica that we love so much, that it is carried through into the future, that our children and our children’s children can enjoy the beauty that I knew as a child.  Perhaps it is too late.    

I hope not.  But at least for now – Pellew Island remains a gorgeous coastal feature in Portland, a place where anyone can swim, raft or canoe to, lie in the sand on a tiny beach under low hanging trees and dream the day away.

Some fourteen years ago, JET decided to focus its efforts on environmental education in schools.  At the time, many JET members were young parents and they felt that if children had a greater understanding of and appreciation for the natural environment, they would behave differently as adults.  We started our education programme in nine schools in 1994, then called Earth Schools.  In 1997, we joined forces with the Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust (JCDT) to implement the Schools' Environment Programme or SEP, delivered to 125 schools in that first year.  At its largest, SEP was implemented in 353 schools, reaching an estimated 300,000 students and 600 teachers.  Students and teachers had to improve their waste handling, green the grounds, start or strengthen an environmental club and carry out some kind of environmental research.  The programme also carried out professional development workshops on environmental themes for teachers twice per year, including field trips, curriculum infusion exercises and hands on activities suitable for classrooms.

Over the past several weeks, we’ve been engaged in a clean up project at JET – see Nadia’s JET Journal entry at Cleaning: a walk down memory lane. We’ve been going through old files, painting, storing, getting rid of non functional equipment – our attempt to get the electronic equipment recycled or disposed of properly failed – re ordering the library and so on. We have now been at 11 Waterloo Road for over 8 years, so we have generated a lot of stuff. And everyone at JET (except me!) is a pack rat.

It is clear that efforts to improve solid waste management in Jamaica under an IADB funded loan between 1999 and 2006 were a failure. The IADB remains concerned about solid waste, however, and has supplied grant money to develop a new Integrated Solid Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan. The current consultant’s report also deals with more recent developments and the situation regarding solid waste issues which were not part of the IADB project. Some excerpts from the draft Strategy:

In June 1999, the Inter American Development Bank (IADB) and the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) signed an agreement for a loan of US$11.5 million to address some of Jamaica’s many solid waste problems. The objective was to improve the environmental and sanitary conditions of the main solid waste disposal site in the Kingston Metropolitan Area at Riverton and other non active sites around the country. The executing agency was the Ministry of Local Government, Youth and Community Development.

The rationale for the project was stated as follows in IADB’s project completion report:

• In 1998/9 an estimated 840,000 tons of waste was generated by Jamaica’s 2.6 million residents
• Only about two-thirds of that was collected. The other one-third was disposed of in vacant lots,  gutters, drains and gullies (or burned – Ed.)
• There were 15 dumps in the island; most were sited in areas of permeable soils with a high risk of water pollution
• Waste was poorly compacted, lacked proper drainage and leachate control and cover material was used intermittently
• Frequent fires occurred, as well as uncontrolled human and animal foraging.
• Riverton received about 60% of Jamaica’s waste stream and operated without any formal or developmental procedures, safety and health protection, or environmental safeguards
• The responsibility for solid waste management was spread across multiple agencies

The IADB’s assessment of the project in 2006 reads as follows:

“The overall implementation progress (IP) of the project was very unsatisfactory, and the development objective was not achieved. Of the US$11.5 Million loan amount only US$3.8 was utilized and US$7.62 was cancelled. An initial amount of US$3.2 Million was cancelled as a consequence of a re-scoping of the project as agreed with the GOJ in October 2004, and the balance of US4.42 was cancelled as part of the closure of the project in April 2006, when the date for final disbursement was reached. In addition to the US$3.8 utilized from the loan, US$1.96 was allocated as Counterpart Contribution for a total of US$5.76 expended on the project.”

This failure notwithstanding, the following outputs were achieved:

• Infrastructure for access control (road, bridge, fence, gate, lighting etc) were constructed
• A weight scale installed
• Landfill equipment was purchased
• An office building and a materials recovery building were constructed
• Landfill operation improvements were recommended and implemented from 2002 onwards
• Staff training was executed
• A community recycling programme was started
• Pollution abatement controls were being put in place
• Landfill closure plans for three dumpsites were completed
• Regulations for tipping fees were drafted
• A public education program was initiated

According to the completion report, these outcomes were also achieved:

• The approval of the National Solid Waste Management Act of 2001
• The establishment of the National Solid Waste Management Authority
• Implementation of a range of improvements at Riverton

So it doesn’t sound TOO bad. Yes, we failed to use all the funding, had to give back more than half of it, but some things were done. Right?

Fast forward to December 2009. I am invited by the Planning Institute of Jamaica to a stakeholder consultation to discuss the NEW Integrated Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan for Jamaica, funded by – wait for it - the IADB. I ask for and receive the draft Strategy and Action Plan. Going back and forth between this new document and the IADB’s 2006 project completion report, this is what I learn:

• In the three years since the closure of the previous IADB project, most of the trained staff have left NSMWA
• New trucks were purchased in 2008 to alleviate the equipment shortage – by December 2009, 90% were out of service
• Collection is hardly ever done in accordance with the schedule posted on NSWMA’s website
• The cost recovery legislation needed to implement a regime of tipping fees is still with the Chief Parliamentary Council
• The scale installed is inoperable, due to flooding
• Riverton is unfenced, security issues remain serious
• The Materials Recovery Building was never used. (I’m told that both buildings are now derelict)
• The access road is in poor condition
• The bridge has a structural crack and is out of use
• The heavy equipment purchased under the IADB project is not operational
• Tyres are stockpiled and the tyre baler is not working
• The landfill staff are working without protective gear
• Riverton has been the scene of numerous fires over the past 10 years. NSWMA has stopped issuing information on fires to the public
• The closure plans for the other sites were never implemented. NSWMA simply stopped using the sites. The GOJ is even considering putting houses on one of them.
• Pollution abatement at Riverton was not accomplished, although the percolation of leachate would have improved
• The construction of the sanitary landfill – which had the biggest allocation in the Project Budget – was not financed. Thus at the end of the project, the IADB sadly concluded, Jamaica still did not have a sanitary landfill.

And no doubt we are still paying back the US$3.8 million loan – roughly $340 million JA! I know this is a modest sum to a government, but all I can think about is what could have been done with this money – what it would have meant to a school, or a hospital, a rural community. What it should have meant to the Riverton dump itself.

The IADB’s diagnosis of what went wrong included institutional infighting, lack of political will and poor budget allocation by the Executing Agency and the Ministry of Finance and Planning. The report says: “Without real commitment to a project at the decision-making level, that project will not succeed. Having a competent Project Manager and a well-staffed Project Executing Unit with realistic work plans, terms of reference and designs, procurement documents and timeframe for the completion of activities, and having broad agreement among stakeholders on the project objective cannot translate into effective project implementation without requisite budget support. The project required a champion at the highest level of Government who could articulate a vision for solid waste management in Jamaica, within its fiscal realities, and convince the authorities to provide the minimum financial resources required annually to achieve the vision over an estimated period of time.”

I looked around the room at the 2009 stakeholders’ consultation. Still not a decision maker in sight.

Welcome to EarthTalk, the blog of the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET).

As I think about the first topic for the blog on JET’s new website, the United Nations Conference on Climate Change is taking place in Copenhagen, Denmark . I watch the news every night to see what’s going on – often, I wish I had gone.