Peter Espeut
I HAVE received a half-a-dozen invitations over the last two or three days from radio talk shows to discuss the impact of Hurricanes Dennis and Emily on the environment. This is all well and good, but I get a bit impatient. When the sun is shining very few want to talk and discuss long term environmental issues - sustainable development issues. When the weather is good we rejoice about new invest-ments in highways and the hotel industry and in agriculture, and not one question is asked on talk shows about the environmental consequences of these so-called "development" projects. And then when the storm clouds gather - or in the wake of destruction -; we want to talk about the environment. Isn't late really the same thing as never?
Little Jamaica cannot stop hurricanes, or by herself slow down the processes that make them more frequent and more dangerous; but we can do our business and live our lives in such a way that much of the destruction can be prevented. There is a lot of room for improvement in Jamaica's environmental legislation, but even if we implement and enforce what we have in place, we would be much better off than we are now. When I see storms pass 100 miles south of us and still cause a heap of destruction, it makes me fear what might happen if it came nearer or if we got a hit. We have sat by and allowed our infrastructure to deteriorate, which in the end will cost us more to replace and rehabilitate than if we had maintained it. Aside from the environmental implications, it is also irrational and inefficient and wasteful.
I don't believe that either the private sector or the government has really bought into the strategy called "sustainable development". You cannot just listen to the unctuous platitudes; to know what people really believe in, you have to look at deeds. You have to look at the strategies the private sector use to avoid having to do an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and if they have to do one, how they avoid having to do a meaningful one. You have to look at how the consultants do "an EIA in support of" a project rather than take an objective look. The task of the consultant is to get the NRCA to give a permit, not to see that the environment is protected. This is because the consultants are paid by the investor, and are accountable to the investor. Should environmental consultants find that a project is too damaging to be permitted to go ahead, and recommend accordingly, they will not get much work. And so the system set up by the government ensures that we will continue to get EIAs "in support of" these projects, which subverts the purpose of EIAs.
JA'S ENVIRONMENT PAYING THE PRICE
I don't see either the private sector or the government taking care that what happens on our little island does not do long-term harm. In the cash flow projections and in the calculus of return on investment I do not see the short, medium and long-term impact on the environment. Missing is the cost of collection and the disposal of plastic and other solid waste the project will produce; the government must cover that, and if they fail then the environment must bear the cost. Any project which involves land-clearing omits the cost of deforestation in which Jamaica is a world leader; omitted from agricultural projects is the cost of the damage associated with the washing from the soil of excess fertiliser and pesticides; nowhere is the loss in productivity and production caused by soil erosion calculated; or the cost of air pollution caused by the tens of thousands of cars which daily languish in traffic jams.
Under pressure from 'developers' in the private sector, the process of environmental evaluation has been emasculated and eviscerated. Over the last few years, the Natural Resource Conservation Authority which is charged with the duty of environmental protection has been diluted by a merger with the Town Planning Authority. The 'environmental' staff have been reduced, and 'planners' and other 'development-oriented' staff have replaced them. The governing board has only one (token) environmentalist. The rout of the environmental focus within the merged entity called NEPA (the National Environment and Planning Agency) has taken place in the full glare of the media, which has said nothing about it. It takes a hurricane or an earthquake to get the Jamaican media interested in the environment.
The environment pays much of the price of political corruption, as projects of the genetically linked get permits without due diligence. "Politics road never buil' good". I have watched the feeding trough defined as political cronies get contracts, and then haggle over where the work force must come from, and where the marl must come from, and then the "money no 'nuff"; and then a few months later, the 'politics road' mash up in a hurricane due to poor construction.
We could do much better. These near-hurricane hits do not have to cause the horrendous damage that they now cause. If we sow the wind, we can be sure that we will reap the whirlwind.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
