Trite, questionable scoping study

By Peter Espeut

I have major difficulties with the final report of the scoping study submitted by Conrad Douglas & Associates (CDA) on the Portland Bight Protected Area (PBPA).

I was intimately involved in defining and refining the concept of the PBPA, the design of its boundaries, and the preparation of its first management plan. I am retired now, but I certainly was not consulted by CDA to inform their study, and neither were any of the present staff of the Caribbean Coastal Area Management Foundation (CCAM) of which I am the founding executive director, which has managed the PBPA.

The scoping study is riddled with errors and inaccuracies, and shows plain ignorance. Take for example the strong assertion made by CDA under the section 'Legal Status' that: "The PBPA does not fit any of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories" (page 22). This is an ignorant statement.

Is Conrad Douglas suggesting that because - in his view - the PBPA does not fall under one IUCN category or the other, its legal status is somehow questionable? Isn't Jamaican Law good enough for him? The Jamaican government created the PBPA under Jamaican law complying with official Government of Jamaica policy. If Conrad Douglas wants to discover the legal status of the PBPA, he has to find it under Jamaican law, not in IUCN categories.

Nevertheless, the 'Green Paper on Parks and Protected Areas in Jamaica' produced by the GoJ in 1995 sets out the IUCN categories and their Jamaican equivalents. The PBPA was conceived as, "IUCN Category VI: Protected area with sustainable use of natural resources" which then the GoJ called a "Managed Resource Conservation Area". It was this government document - and the White Paper which followed it in 1997 ('Towards a System of Parks and Protected Areas in Jamaica') - which informed the design of the PBPA.

"Category VI protected areas conserve ecosystems and habitats together with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are generally large, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area." (CDA Study page 24). This is a perfect description of the PBPA.

official policy document

The statement that, "The PBPA does not fit any of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) categories" reveals how trite and semantic the CDA report is. Because the GOJ did not call the PBPA an IUCN Category VI, but called it a Managed Resource Conservation Area, then it is not in IUCN Category VI; despite the GOJ clearly stating in its official policy document that Managed Resource Conservation Area is equivalent to IUCN Category VI.

Another example of how trite and semantic the CDA report is may be found on page three: "Within the PBPA, there are nine (9) cays and nine (9) islands". This is a meaningless statement. The CDA report calls 'Pigeon Island' an 'island' because its name contains the word 'island', while 'Little Half Moon Cay' is a cay because its name contains the word 'cay'. Despite the difference in name, both Pigeon Island and Little Half Moon Cay are identical geologically, being of coral-derived sand surrounding a mangrove lagoon. The Goat Islands, however, are quite different, being geologically similar to the Hellshire Hills (dry limestone forest) of which originally they were a part. The science in the study is sloppy.

The essence of the strategy for managing the PBPA was that it should be zoned into smaller areas for conservation and protection, again following Jamaican versions of the IUCN categories. The real natural resource management was to take place within these smaller 'protected areas within a protected area'.

And this is how industry, agriculture, housing and natural ecosystems could co-exist in a protected area: each would have its own zone with its own regulations to ensure sustainable development.

The 1999 PBPA Management Plan proposed 28 conservation zones, including eight fish sanctuaries. Regulations for the PBPA were to have been put in place within a year of its designation (i.e., the year 2000), which would provide the legal basis for the zonation. Despite signing off on those regulations in 1999, and drafting instructions being sent to the Office of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel in 2000, the PBPA is still a protected area in name only - with no regulations to govern its operations. Slackness!

Under Jamaican law, it is the government which has the responsibility to manage Jamaican protected areas; it may delegate management to NGOs, but it is ultimately responsible. One of the many areas in which the CDA study is deficient is that it does not address how the area has been poorly managed by the government since its creation in 1999; and the government's failure to put in place the basic framework for its proper management. (More next week).

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and natural resource manager. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com