Following the recent degradation at Fort Rocky in the Palisadoes-Port Royal Protected Area (P-PRPA), I am sure I am not alone in feeling frustrated by the state of environmental management and protection in Jamaica. Time and time again, we see the natural environment treated as expendable, with decisions prioritising ‘development’ over conservation or protection — often without proper public consultation, cost benefit analyses, rigorous environmental assessments, or even adherence to the law. Development is frequently framed solely as economic progress, with mere lip service paid to environmental issues.

On March 5, the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET) learned of significant habitat destruction in the P-PRPA, a designated protected area since 1998. The effort to convert Fort Rocky into an entertainment zone is being managed by the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT) under the auspices of the Ministry of Culture, Gender, Entertainment and Sport. In response, the JET and several others raised concerns publicly. What followed was a series of interactions with government entities that left me even more disheartened about Jamaica’s environmental governance.

On March 11, the JET visited Fort Rocky alongside representatives from the Ministry of Culture, the JNHT, and the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA). We were told that an environmental assessment had been conducted and consultations had taken place. Officials also claimed that the land clearance was a ‘mistake,’ insisting that the original plan was to shuttle people to the venue. I stood there in shock as Television Jamaica (TVJ) recorded the remarks of government representatives, who reiterated their commitment to environmental protection — all while we stared at a devastated section of land next to the sea. Not only had the vegetation been bulldozed but also the sand dunes, which protect the area from storm surge. I was told my language was too strong. Instead of “devastation” or “destruction,” I was encouraged to call it “land clearance”.

DISTURBING

Equally disturbing was the insistence by those present, including the chief executive officer of NEPA, that no mangroves had been removed and that those who claimed otherwise were spreading misinformation. This seemed intended to pacify concerns as though the absence of mangrove removal made the destruction inconsequential. If NEPA has a habitat map, which would have justified this claim, I would be grateful to receive it. But even if mangroves were not cleared, the fact remains that the site is within a protected area, and every plant and animal present plays a crucial role in preventing erosion and maintaining the health of Kingston Harbour.

After finally receiving and reviewing a copy of the environmental assessment on the evening of March 11, it became clear that the NEPA and the Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) had not required a full Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Instead, they seemed satisfied with a limited study focused only on light, noise and vibration and their effects on specific species. The NRCA Act gives the Authority discretion in requesting an EIA, but in a case like this — where the impacts extend far beyond those three factors — it is unclear why a more comprehensive study, such as an EIA, was not required. Notably, the assessment identified a designated parking lot — the very site that was later cleared “by mistake”.

On the site visit, we were also assured that stakeholder consultations took place. The environmental assessment (EA) lists seven stakeholder groups, including the Port Royal Community, yet members of the Port Royal Community Development Committee say they were never consulted. The Palisadoes-Port Royal Protected Area Management Committee, of which the JET, the JNHT, and other groups are members, was also excluded from the consultations — despite the legal requirement under the Natural Resources Conservation (Protected Areas) Regulations, 202, for this committee to be engaged.

FAILED TO SPECIFY

The EA acknowledged the area’s protected status but failed to specify the laws under which it is protected, omitting crucial legal and permit requirements. The P-PRPA is protected under Section 5(1)(b) of the Natural Resources Conservation Authority Act, 1991, and the Natural Resources Conservation (Protected Areas) Regulations, 2023. Leaving this out is a glaring oversight. It is also worth noting that the NEPA is the park manager and responsible for monitoring and enforcement.

At a March 18 meeting of the P-PRPA Management Committee, the NEPA revealed that they only received a copy of the EA on March 6. The study was dated February 16, 2024. How is that possible? To whom did the JNHT or the ministry believe the completed study should be submitted? Surely, they knew NEPA’s role and that any land clearance in a protected area required an environmental permit?

Equally troubling is the lack of accountability. The NEPA has now ordered the JNHT to rehabilitate the area — but is this enough? The National Water Commission was similarly ordered to rehabilitate a section of the protected area in 2021 after unauthorised vegetation clearance. More recently, the Civil Aviation Authority and Jamaica Meteorological Services also received stop orders for unauthorised construction. The status of these rehabilitation efforts, however, remains unclear as reports have not been made public. These repeated violations highlight a troubling pattern: weak enforcement is failing to deter environmental offences.

Are we really satisfied with an approach that has a state agency destroying a piece of land in a protected area and then being required to restore it, all at taxpayers’ expense?

Jamaica’s natural environment is invaluable. Without a healthy environment, we cannot have a healthy economy or healthy people. Protecting it requires transparency, accountability, and meaningful enforcement of our environmental laws. This incident highlights the urgent need for stronger environmental governance, but it also presents an opportunity — an opportunity for the public to demand better, for the oversight agencies to step up, for state agencies to know what the environmental laws say, and for decision-makers to recognise that true development must place the environment at the centre of the decision-making process. Development should not come at any cost.

Theresa Rodriguez-Moodie is an environmental scientist and chief executive officer of the Jamaica Environment Trust. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.