‘Total forest loss’
Forestry Department warned authorities against allowing Bengal to operate quarry
Published:Tuesday | June 3, 2025 | 12:06 AM
The Forestry Department warned in a formal objection to the proposed Bengal Development Company quarry in the Dry Harbour Mountains of St Ann that mining would likely result in the “total loss of forest cover, species loss ... habitat loss and degradation of the existing landscape”.
It flagged the 59 per cent forest cover in the area under Bengal’s environmental permit as pivotal to maintaining groundwater aquifers for Jamaica’s northern coast, and dismissed the Bengal’s promises to restore the forest after mining as unproven.
“Historically, we have yet to see a quarry site that has been decommissioned and successfully reforested,” the department’s then-acting CEO, Renee Oliphant, wrote bluntly in a February 2020 letter to the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA).
More than five years later, the letter has resurfaced at the centre of a major constitutional lawsuit, cited by environmental educator and biologist Wendy Lee as a critical piece of evidence in her campaign to overturn the environmental permit granted to Bengal Development.
Testifying on Monday, the fifth day of the trial, Lee said she was relying on the Forestry Department’s documented concerns to press the court to find that allowing mining in the ecologically sensitive area would breach the constitutional rights of residents to a healthy and safe environment, free from degradation of ecological heritage.
“Fifty-nine per cent of the permitted area is heavily forested, according to the Forestry Department,” Lee testified under cross-examination.
Lee is the first named claimant among six residents and property owners who are asking the Constitutional Court to revoke the permit and block mining altogether.
They are contending that Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness’ decision in 2020 to overturn a denial by the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) ignored critical environmental warnings and will enable a project that threatens their rights and Jamaica’s natural heritage.
In the 2020 letter, addressed to then National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA) CEO Peter Knight, the Forestry Department registered “strong objection” to the proposed expansion of quarrying in the area. NEPA is the administrative arm of the NRCA, the country’s chief environmental regulator.
It highlighted that the department had not been involved in preparing the terms of reference for the 2019 environmental impact assessment (EIA) and that this exclusion was evident in the document’s treatment of forest risks.
“Cursory attention was paid to the devastating impact that the expansion of the quarry ... would have on the verdant forest resources found in the environs of the proposed quarry activity,” Oliphant wrote.
Those forest resources, the department noted, play an essential role in safeguarding groundwater for the north coast.
Under cross-examination by Annaliesa Lindsay, the lawyer representing the attorney general, Lee confirmed that her reference to the 59 per cent forest cover came from the Forestry Department’s warning. It’s one of the six “important” documents the residents’ attorney King’s Counsel Michael Hylton had identified as central to the case.
HAPHAZARD APPROACH
Oliphant also slammed the EIA’s proposed mitigation measures, including reforestation and revegetation, as “a very haphazard approach”.
She warned that raw limestone left behind after mining would be “devoid of organic material”, making plant survival “extremely low”, and noted that there was limited water availability to support any replanting effort.
The Forestry Department also criticised alternatives in the EIA, saying except for the ‘no action’ alternatives, all the proposals “will result in significant, if not, total loss of forest cover”.
Lee said the EIA did not address her concerns, even if some of the issues were mentioned. “They did not satisfy me,” she told Lindsay.
Pressed further, she agreed that conditions in the 2020 amended environmental permit required Bengal to seek prior approval from the Forestry Department before starting the quarrying.
That was after the lawyer suggested to her that “it’s not a given that the third defendant (Bengal Development) must get that prior approval”.
Lee’s testimony builds on earlier assertions in her affidavit that enforcement of permit conditions had been weak in the past, and that she did not believe the authorities would effectively regulate Bengal’s operations.
“I am not confident that they will implement enforcement measures if Bengal does not comply with the terms of [its] permit,” she said.
NO EVIDENCE
However, under cross-examination, Lee admitted she had not seen the permits for the previous quarry operators and did not provide evidence of the enforcement failures she alleged.
“Do you agree with me that when you say that the authorities did not implement the necessary enforcement actions, you expect this court to just abide by what you say without the relevant evidence?” Lindsay asked.
“I don’t agree,” Lee responded.
Hylton objected to that line of questioning, but Lindsay argued it was a fair challenge since Lee had admitted she had no evidence to support that specific claim.
Meanwhile, Lee conceded that she did not bring legal action against bauxite company Noranda, which operates nearby, over alleged dust nuisance in the area.
She also acknowledged that the proposed mining site is not included in the protected area and that the Forestry Department’s letter was part of the NRCA’s report submitted to the minister who heard the appeal. But she said she could not say what the minister considered.
The environmental permit to Bengal was issued in December 2020, a month after Holness overturned the NRCA board’s May 2020 decision to reject the company’s application.
Former minister in Holness’ office Leslie Campbell, formally heard the appeal, but Holness signed the final decision in his capacity as minister responsible for NEPA and the NRCA.
The residents’ attorney told the court last week that NEPA advised that it did not have records of the minister’s reasons, saying the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation handled the appeal.
“One might have thought that the minister’s reasons would be one of the important documents. It isn’t, because it’s not been disclosed,” Hylton said.
Bengal’s environmental permit came with 76 conditions, but Lee claims that they do not adequately address her concerns, including those raised by the Forestry Department. She also said she was unaware that the NRCA had requested a revised EIA from Bengal Development.
Lindsay argued in court that the permit conditions — including provisions for ecological monitoring and enforcement — address the major issues raised.
Lee will continue giving evidence Tuesday, facing cross-examination from Bengal Development’s lead counsel, Abe Dabdoub.