Peter Espeut | Permitting unsustainable development

In philosophy, from the time of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the discipline of ethics has been an attempt to offer a rational response to the question of how humans should best live. What politics tries to do is to codify ethics into law, and to implement law fairly and justly, for the common good of individuals and society.

It sounds simple enough, but the complications come in when there are competing claims for what is the right and the good, and the choices can be difficult. In this COVID-19 pandemic, should we open up the economy so that money can be made, or should we close down the economy to protect lives, especially those of the elderly with co-morbidities?

Shouldn’t the constitutional right to life of Jamaicans trump all other considerations? Is the Government justified to take decisions that will put Jamaican lives at risk? Can the State decide that some should die so that others may prosper? How do we identify the common good in these circumstances?

Both of Jamaica’s political parties have stated in their manifestos that they are committed to sustainable development; but that concept embodies another tension: between economic activity and environmental destruction. Many so-called ‘development’ projects require damaging the natural environment. All the definitions of sustainable development emphasise that economic activity which depletes or destroys natural resources is unsustainable, and should be avoided/prohibited.

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, 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 process. The NRCA has the power to refuse a permit for any project deemed to be damaging to natural ecosystems – flora and fauna.

FEW POSITIVE OUTCOMES

There is no doubt that every project – even seriously damaging ones – may have a few positive outcomes: for example, 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 be trumped every time by the demand that the natural environment be conserved.

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.

Now we hear that the portfolio minister has overturned the technical decision of the NRCA, and has 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 has the power under the law to issue executive orders overturning certain decisions, without having to give any reason, and those decisions are not subject to challenge in the courts.

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

The Andrew Holness administration has carefully tried to build a reputation of being environmentally sound, although that reputation has been badly damaged due to the permitting of bauxite mining in the Cockpit Country. Should the quarrying of the healthy and intact dry limestone forest on Puerto Bueno Mountain be allowed to proceed, this Government will have lost any claim to being environmentally sound. Where is the common good in this decision?

Peter Espeut is an environmentalist and rural development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.