On February 11th, 2008 the developers of the Bahia Principe hotel at Pear Tree Bottom in Runaway Bay – Hoteles Pinero Jamaica Limited (HOJAPI) – held a meeting that was supposed to be a public consultation on the proposed expansion by 900 rooms of their already enormous hotel. We plan to provide more information on the meeting and the issues raised, but will start off by posting this letter received from Lloyd D’Aguilar describing his ‘take’ on the meeting. Were you there, too? You’re welcome to post your comments below.
Re: Public Meeting to discuss the environmental impacts of the proposed expansion of the Bahía Príncipe hotel.
1. The meeting was heavily weighted in favour of the developer. Chairing the meeting was someone (seemingly connected to the Church) who kept “order” in favour of the developer; additionally, on the platform was a representative of the company which carried out the EIA assessment (Environmental Solutions), which if my memory serves me correct, was commissioned by the developer; there were also two HOJAPI representatives, including its lawyer; and, in the audience was a sizable contingent of very vocal and energetic employees of HOJAPI.
2. Without attempting to assess the meeting overall it is clear that there should have been on the platform, a representative from the environmental community to make an evaluation of the EIA and to argue concerns from that perspective. Without such an input there could hardly have been balance and fairness to the proceedings. WHO MADE THE RULES? SHOULDN”T THEY BE CHANGED?
3. Asking questions from the floor under such unequal and adversarial circumstances does not provide for full amplification of the grave implications for the environment should this proposed development go forward.
4. As it stands there was no definitive answer to questions raised about the capacity to handle sewage for such a large hotel. Indeed, the developer expressed satisfaction with existing plans and felt the question was really without merit.
5. Despite this state of bliss, however, the fact is that sewage disposal is one the main issues that go to the heart of the question whether such a mega hotel should be allowed. Indeed, inadequate sewage disposal from hotels right across the north coast is causing tremendous environmental degradation. [Cruise ships are also making their contribution and should be vigorously monitored for their well known practices.]
6. The other glaring weakness of the proceeding was that the NEPA representative arrived late, spoke from the floor, agreed that there have been violations and enforcement issues, but clearly was quite malleable to the philosophy of “why can’t we just all get along.”
7. NEPA it must be clearly stated represents the development side of the equation – it is not a serious environmental protection agency no matter what anyone might think.
8. As it stands there is no reason to believe that environmental concerns made any serious impact on the proceedings because in the final analysis those who will make the final decisions are in favour of development.
9. A successful legal challenge this time around should not be depended upon given the fact that the Marine Ecology Report has now been presented.
1. As Bob Marley says ‘don’t give up the fight.’ So though it is quite likely that the project will go ahead, those who have the strength to put up with the BS coming from NEPA, government officials, and the rest, should continue to use whatever access they have to make their points and try to educate the public in the process.
2. The bigger picture, however, is that there has to be change of course as far as this tourism push is concerned. Not only will the reefs die off in a few years but poverty, social inequality, social frustration, and repression will increase to in order to sustain this destructive, unsustainable path in the quest of wealth for a few. [NB: squatting has grown up around some of these mega hotel sites and the present government if it is to believed has stated that it will be quite resolute with squatters. Not so resolute with hotel developers, unfortunately, and certainly the methods against the squatters will be quite harsh. Afterall, squatters are not able to invite government officials to cocktails and tea parties.]
3. The ‘environmental movement’ also needs to strike out on a new path in order to win public support. The movement cannot afford to get bogged down trying to put out one bush fire after another. It needs to look at the bigger picture.
ISSUES AND QUESTIONS:
I believe there should be no support for any sort of mega hotel development along the lines of Bahia Principe and RIU in Mammee Bay. Many more are coming on stream and much faster than it is possible to adequately react to. We need to have a discussion about whether this kind of development makes sense and to see if there can’t be agreement about size sustainability and limits. It is clear that Bahia Principe should never have been built on the site where it is now located because of the sensitive environmental nature of this property. I believe it was a mistake for the environmental movement to have supported any sort of building there– small or otherwise. Indeed HOJAPI made it quite clear that they would not have been satisfied with anything less than the near 2000 rooms they are seeking to build. I’m sure there were many other suitable sites there throughout the Island?
One of the opportunist refrains coming from the pro-developer quarter, was that poverty is greatest agent of environmental degradation. In other words, turn a blind eye to the environmental degradation being caused by HOJAPI because it is relieving poverty. This kind of argument has to be countered because it is pernicious, but yet appealing to those seeking work to support themselves.
Finally, is it possible to organize a comprehensive discussion among environmentalists to look at the kind of organizational and political strategies and tactics that need to be adopted in order to capture the public’s imagination and hopefully to save the island from the environmental disaster that awaits us? I would look forward to some response.
4 comments
Comments feed for this article
13 February, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Wendy Lee
To add to what Lloyd says, let me answer his question, “who makes the rules?’. The rules for the conduct of public EIA consultations are contained in guidelines issued by NRCA and available on the NEPA website. The importance of following these guidelines is captured in the letter from the Minister of Environment and Health to the developer’s attorney, Mrs. Sandra Minott-Phillips, communicating the decision of the appeal hearing on December 6th:
“The appellant, HOJAPI limited, are to engage in public consultation in accordance with the NRCA’s EIA guidelines in relation to the following documents:
1. May 2005 Addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) – Bahía Príncipe Hotel Resort Development dated February 2005, including the Marine Ecology Report;
2. June 2005 Addendum to the EIA dated February 2005”
That said, there is no doubt that NRCA’s EIA guidelines for public consultation were NOT followed; we are in the process of documenting in detail the many ways that this meeting failed to comply with the guidelines. Indeed, the Chairperson herself told me on the telephone the next morning that she had never seen those guidelines!
So despite the fervent claims of the developers’ attorneys that they have “tried their best” to comply with all of the NRCA’s requirements, it was quite clear from the way the meeting was conducted that no effort was made to comply with the basic rules of hosting a public consultation. From the busloads of construction workers brought in from other areas to the rows of HOJAPI employees that fillled the seats long before the residents arrived, the deck was stacked against the true purpose of the consultation (to consider the environmental impacts of the hotel) and used as a platform for rabble-rousing and intimidation by elements of the society who think that “balance” means it’s OK to mash up the environment as long as you pay people.
The bottom line will not be the economic impacts of not approving the expansion, but the irreversible and unmitigable environmental impacts that would result from allowing it to go ahead. Let’s hope the NRCA understands its mandate this time around.
17 February, 2008 at 9:09 am
Elke Macdonald
Wendy,
When I read the article in North Coast Times I was shocked to read so many lies about the Bahia meeting. That is why I called you and Mr. Lawrence right away to get a copy and read about the lies.
Could the reporter not see the difference between Mr. Rodney Kerr and Mr. Othneil Lawrence? How on earth could he / she put Mr. Kerr’s outrageous words as statements from Mr. Lawrence?
I myself think the whole meeting was a sham. I have never tried to speak in public before and was shocked and dismayed how the reps at the table reacted when I tried to bring up my point. I was not allowed to finish my points, while others (of course, those in favour of Bahia, because they benefit financially) were able to say all the crap they wanted, that had nothing to do with the actual reason of the meeting.
Well, as far as I am concerned, the North Coast Times has lost its credibility. They should have named the article ‘Corruption and Money Talks’.
The Publisher owes NJCA a big apology for this outrageous article, and will have to publish an explanation.
21 April, 2009 at 9:03 am
Daniela
The Spanish are coming! Why? Because they filled up their own beaches with monster hotels so large that have become holidaying factories. Also because they are being stopped by environmentalists and governments alike which have realised that the approach is wrong. The Mediterranian is polluted.
I understand that Jamaica does not have many choices when it comes to creating jobs for the local population, however the environment is also very important. The local population has to live in the environment.
The “rich” tourists who come to Jamaica expect a clean environment. Nothing will stop a visitor from coming to JA quicker than reports of filthy water, filthy beaches due to waste and effluents, dirty air and general unhealthy conditions.
This is how we pressured the “holiday” industry in Europe to clean up its acts and become responsible for the waste they produce. Educate their potential tourists and they will suddenly work with the environment. But beware any “green washes”.
21 April, 2009 at 9:20 am
Daniela
I would have thought that for the Spanish Cuba would be a better target due to language and history. But I guess the Cuban Government wont let itself be lead so easily. The minute Cuba becomes “free” the Spanish and all others will pounce?!?