Goat Islands: a mistake we must not make

Alfred Sangster GUEST COLUMNIST

An agreement has been signed for a Chinese-initiated logistics hub to be developed on the Goat Islands. A forum at the University of the West Indies on November 10, 2013 unfortunately cast the development as a war between the environment and development. The battle lines have been drawn as the issue emerges as a critical one for Jamaica.

This article re-examines the issues and postulates a win-win situation for Jamaica, with the retention of the current multi-user arrangements for the Portland Bight with the development of the Kingston Harbour site as the hub.

1 The proposed development

China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) proposes to spend US$1.5 billion on the project, and it has been confidently stated by the proponents of the scheme that some 10,000 jobs, with associated infrastructure - yet to be defined - will be generated. Environmental lobbyist Diana McCaulay has evoked the Access to Information Act to gain information on the proposal.

2 The environmental issues

The environmentalists have been attacked by trivialising the issue with comments like, "There are no lizards on the Goat Islands." (Professor Shirley) However, the environmentalists envisage a home for this nearly-extinct species on the islands. The significant value of the carbon credits of the area, quoted by the United Nations, has been dismissed as insignificant, and the resort to vulgar name-calling - 'That screeching environmentalist' by Ronald Mason - of those that defend the Portland Bight should be rejected.

The then People's National Party Government made a covenant with the Jamaican people in passing in 1999 legislation to create the Portland Bight Protected Area (PBPA) as a national treasure. This covenant will be breached, and it should also be noted that a further 2012 proposal to UNESCO, resubmitted in November 2013 for the Portland Bight area to be designated a biosphere reserve, was subsequently stopped from implementation by Robert Pickersgill's Ministry of Land, Water, Environment and Climate Change. This action was obviously intended to clear the way for the Chinese hub.

The Government has taken the Chinese bait and is moving ahead to make the area a large industrial site. The JLP Opposition, with its head buried in the sand, has said we will wait on the environmental impact assessment findings. Both parties are guilty of breaching a covenant with the Jamaican people. It should be noted that the first scoping study - used to justify the action - was extensively criticised by some eight professional agencies. We must insist that the required environmental study is subject to open tender with the contractor general's involvement.

3 The Chinese in Jamaica: History and advice

The Chinese have a long history of involvement in Jamaican life. This project moves in a new dimension in terms of both size and concept. A very successful project with the previous administration (Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme) was well implemented and partnered with Jamaican contractors. The Chinese rejection of the Kingston Harbour site for the Goat Islands on the basis that the site was too small is a bogus claim, as the size is no different from the Goat Islands, taking into account the additional land area planned beyond the shoreline. It reflects a clear desire to have an enclave on the islands, and the development puts the Chinese as the new imperialists.

Such an enclave would have both sovereignty and constitutional implications for Jamaica, and it represents a new philosophical methodology of working in the country. This new view of the Chinese as colonialists in a country which has long memories of the legacies of British - and to a lesser degree, Spanish- colonialism is potentially dangerous for both parties. For the project can expect increasing opposition from all sectors of the society with the prospect of a legal case being brought.

The project also goes against recognised national laws and international treaties. The following suggestions are offered to the Chinese officials.

Consultation with eminent Chinese Jamaicans, Howard Chin (Jamaica Institution of Engineers), Professor Anthony Chen (UWI) and others would be advisable in seeking guidance on the way forward.

Turn to the former Kingston Harbour project. Money would be better spent, the hub objectives achieved with less expenditure, and a significant saving of time. This direction of development would make the Chinese real partners with the Government and people of Jamaica.

4. The choice of hub

The arguments for the two sites being considered are as follows.

A. Arguments against the Goat Islands site

A written and published opinion by Howard Chin argued that the site was unsuitable.

Significant environmental destruction will take place with the dredging operations and the construction of the port facilities.

Timing of five years has been stated when urgency is on the agenda.

A coal plant would be environmentally disastrous, plus the time to build it.

Numerous agreements and laws, both local and international, govern the site.

Using this site would be a betrayal of the trust of the Jamaican people.

The potential for the Goat Islands being a Chinese enclave is unacceptable.

B. Arguments in favour of the Kingston Harbour site.

The harbour exists already (one of the best in the world)

All traffic methods are at hand or readily expanded - air, rail, road and sea.

Some hub-type projects already exist and can be expanded.

Infrastructure exists already at the port and can be expanded.

The project could meet the urgency identified with the Panama Canal expansion.

The extended space available is as large as the projected Goat Islands and environs.

The site is already a multibillion-dollar site and the Chinese offer of US$1.5 billion is a minuscule amount in relation to the estimate of US$15 billion ultimately required for a truly international hub.

A hub proposal was a project proposed by former Minister of Transport Mike Henry with the previous JLP Government and CHEC.

5. A partnership programme with the private sector and the Chinese is very viable.

The private sector can show two recent examples - New Kingston and Port Bustamante - as successfully implemented significant national projects.

Local private-sector companies can form a local consortium which would be the core Jamaica component of the hub. Some firms include: Bank of Nova Scotia; bauxite companies; Broilers Group; LIME; Digicel; GraceKennedy; Guardian Life; Jamaica National; JPS; Kingston Wharves Ltd; National Commercial Bank; Sagicor; and many more. This consortium would partner with the Chinese in the development. The consortium of companies listed above will need creative and visionary leadership.

Additional external funding - the diaspora; development foundations; overseas governments and firms; international agencies, etc. - would significantly enhance the project.

The local firms - all having Jamaican shareholders - would become involved in the equity of the business and, therefore, there would be a long-term commitment to the Jamaicanisation of the hub and port.

The Jamaica Chamber of Commerce's going to bed with the Chinese project, without the local equity participation, is regrettable and unacceptable. We must not make the same mistake we made with bauxite by merely selling the product without the ownership component in terms of business involvement.

This is a project that requires vision and faith and a belief that Jamaica can partner successfully with the Chinese in this important development. Done this way, it would be an immediate growth project for the country.

Alfred Sangster is president emeritus, UTech, and past chair of JIM. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and sangsteralfred@yahoo.com.