Christopher Burgess | Was clearing Fort Rocky dunes worth it?

The recent move to designate Fort Rocky as an entertainment zone has raised regulatory and environmental concerns, especially the removal of sand dunes that offer natural shoreline protection. Levelling and removing the dunes makes it more likely for hurricane waves to breach the road.

When the road is breached, the waves penetrate the harbour, threatening important assets along Kingston’s shoreline like Petrojam and posing substantial risks to the capital city’s coastline assets, valued at over US$980 million. While the need for designated entertainment spaces is a real one, particularly in the home of reggae music and the cultural Mecca of the Caribbean, given the risk posed by climate change, was it worth it to remove the dunes?

We have seen the dangers before. In 2004, Hurricane Ivan severely damaged the Palisadoes with five- to nine-metre waves, breaching the Palisadoes Road. In 2007, Hurricane Dean rendered the Palisadoes Road almost impassable to the Norman Manley International Airport. These events highlight the vulnerability of the Palisadoes strip to hurricanes and the need to both maintain natural protection and install robust shoreline-protection measures like the boulders on Palisadoes.

Why would the Ministry of Entertainment remove the natural protection without getting the necessary regulatory approvals from NEPA and KSAMC and without putting in place hard protection in such a vulnerable area?

CONSEQUENCE OF REMOVING DUNES

Natural features such as mangroves and sand dunes serve as buffers against coastal erosion, storm surges, and flooding. They protect inland areas, including Kingston, from the full force of hurricanes. Eliminating these natural defences can lead to increased erosion of the shoreline and higher storm surge and flood penetration. This scenario can endanger infrastructure, businesses, and residential areas along Kingston’s coast. Notably, approximately US$980 million in public and private assets is estimated to be at risk along the section of Kingston’s shoreline that corresponds to Fort Rocky (NMIA Green Climate Fund proposal).

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Replacing natural protections with hard structures is a costly endeavour, and if the decision is to remove natural defences, hard protections must be in place beforehand. For instance, the current construction at the end of the NMIA runway (valued at over US$6 million) demonstrates the necessity of reinforcing dunes rather than eliminating them. In 2019, it was estimated that the Fort Rocky stretch to Palisadoes would require US$25 million to install renourished dunes to mitigate the increased risks from climate- related hurricane events.

If the Fort Rocky area is breached, it is likely that the shoreline of Kingston will need additional shoreline protection. For reference, Petrojam short-protection costs over US$$2 million. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Port Royal Street cost over US$12 million. Increased wave energy in the harbour would expose the poor condition of seawall downtown on Ocean Boulevard. The additional work on the Kingston Harbour shoreline would easily be in the order of US$30 million, not to mention the US$980 million in value of the national assets at risk. Is the Ministry of Entertainment being penny wise and pound foolish?

Establishing an entertainment district should be informed by a cost-benefit analysis. Apart from the development costs, such as block and steel and marl to build out stages, gates, bathrooms and so on, the cost of shoreline protection AND increased risks to Kingston’s shoreline assets must be considered. Everything must come together.

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: CREATING CHAOS

The question arises: Can the projected revenue from such an entertainment district sustainably cover these substantial costs AND the increased risks of removing the dunes? Moreover, would the potential loss of natural tourism appeal due to environmental degradation offset the anticipated economic gains from the occasional use of the entertainment complex?

Another consideration: traffic jams in relation to Norman Manley International Airport. The New Year’s Eve daytime party ‘Sandz’, in December 2017, caused chaos with a traffic jam that hindered international flights and Port Royal residents until late into the night. Travellers had to make haste on foot to the airport for miles dragging their luggage because the Palisadoes road was blocked by rowdy revellers.

The solution, discussed by stakeholders, from that chaotic event, was that any event on the Palisadoes was to be a remote-park-and-ride event. What happened to that approach of parking in Harbour View and taking a designated ride to the venue? Why have we bulldozed our natural heritage to create a parking lot and the same problem with traffic jams to impact Norman Manley International Airport operations again?

The development of the entertainment sector is vital for economic growth; however, it must not compromise our environmental integrity and economic security. Kingston’s natural shoreline protections are invaluable assets that safeguard both our ecology and economy. Any development plans, including the proposed entertainment district at Fort Rocky, must prioritise the preservation of these natural defences to ensure sustainable growth and the long-term well-being of our coastal communities.

It is concerning that the regulatory processes designed to oversee such developments appear to have been overlooked in this instance. This oversight raises a critical question: Are these laws intended solely for citizens, or is the Government also obligated to adhere to them? Ensuring that all parties, including government entities, comply with environmental regulations is essential for maintaining public trust and protecting our natural resources.

Christopher Burgess, PhD, is a registered civil engineer, land developer ,and the managing director of CEAC Solutions Company Limited. He is a Jamaica Institution of Engineers Council member. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.