JET's letter to Dr Davies on Goat Islands development

[Jangle]

KINGSTON, Jamaica -- Environment watchdog group Jamaica Environment Trust (JET) has penned an “open letter” to Minister of Transport and Works, Dr Omar Davies, posing numerous questions regarding Government’s decision to allow the construction of a deep water pier and other block-and-steel development in the Portland Bight Protected Area.
JET’s unedited letter to Davies:
Dear Minister Davies,
We have read your statement to Parliament on February 25, 2014 on the proposal for China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) to construct a port and industrial park in the Portland Bight Protected Area, in the vicinity of the Goat Islands. We have the following questions and observations:
1) The Jamaican public still does not know what due diligence was done to select this site, what other sites were considered and the reasons for rejection. Since this project was first announced in August 2013, various experts, including, a past President of the Jamaica Institute of Engineers have called into question the suitability of this location and suggested alternative sites. Has the Government asked CHEC to consider other sites for the proposed port? Is it that CHEC is only interested in the Goat Islands for the construction of the port?
2) There has still been no response from the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) to the errors contained in the Environmental Management Scoping Study (EMSR), which were identified in November 2013 by eight agencies and two scientists from the University of the West Indies. It appears that despite these errors, you continue to rely on this flawed study. In brief the errors and omissions of the EMSR were – cursory literature review, scant field observations, inadequate consultation with critical stakeholders, inaccuracies in descriptions of the rare, threatened and endangered species, a too narrow concentration on the Goat Islands themselves (we now know that a large proportion of this development will be on the mainland, so this omission is especially serious) and proposal of mitigation measures that are not feasible.
3) The details of the project as laid out in your presentation confirm the environmentally devastating nature of this port for the coast of a protected area, including the construction of a coal fired coal plant. The serious public health impacts of coal as a source of energy are extremely well documented. It is ironic that the GOJ would consider this in view of its emphasis on the threat presented to Jamaica by climate change and its establishment of a Ministry of Climate Change.
4) We note the emphasis on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, but much is going to depend on the quality of the EIA, the amount of time that is allowed for this to be properly done, and in the event of approval, the resources and political will to monitor and enforce permit conditions. The issues of alternatives and cumulative impacts are generally weak in Jamaican EIAs and it is these issues which are of critical importance in this case.
5) Despite your assurances to the contrary, public consultation and transparency remain inadequate. The Government has denied all of the requests that the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET) has made under the Access to Information Act. To be more specific, our request for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Port Authority and CHEC and the proposals and draft agreement proposed by CHEC have been exempted from disclosure on the grounds that the logistics hub initiative is a central plank to Jamaica’s growth strategy and that the Government’s growth strategy influences the monetary policy. In your previous statement to Parliament on September 10, 2013 you stated, “We invite those who have already taken a position in opposition to the project to place in the public domain some alternatives which would simultaneously protect the natural environment and assist the population.” The documents denied to us likely contain information that would allow us and other interested stakeholders to propose suitable alternatives to Goat Islands.
6) You state that you have met with all the environmental protection agencies. We do not know to which agencies you refer. You have not included JET in these consultations. In addition we can say with certainty that the communities in proximity to the Old Harbour and Goat Islands aspects of this project are still clamouring for more detailed information.
7) The net benefits to Jamaica of this project remain poorly articulated. If we are going to destroy a significant natural area protected under four different Jamaican laws and two international conventions, it should not be for crumbs.
8) We note the existence of an Initial Framework Agreement (IFA) between CHEC and the GOJ and, notwithstanding the response that we received from the Port Authority to our request for a copy of the MOU, we will be requesting a copy of the IFA under the Access to Information Act in the usual manner.
We remain committed to economic development for all Jamaicans that is both equitable and sustainable.

[Sir X]

Beat me to it.

[Sir X]

EDITORIAL - The Economy And The Goat Islands Project
Published: Thursday | February 27, 2014 3 Comments
WE CAN hardly fault the discipline with which the Portia Simpson Miller administration has, over the past year, attended to Jamaica's fiscal affairs.

Its prudence was again on display this week with a revised Budget, tabled by the finance minister, Dr Peter Phillips. He snipped J$20 billion, or four per cent, from the J$521-billion Budget presented last April.

By so doing, Dr Phillips hopes to compensate for a shortfall in revenue, which for the first nine months of the fiscal year was running at J$11 billion, or four per cent below projections. The Budget cut is important if the Government is to meet its obligation to the International Monetary Fund of returning a fiscal surplus of 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is critical if Jamaica is to have a real shot at paying off its debt that stands at over 140 per cent of GDP.

But that has a price of limiting Government's ability to stimulate the economy with its own spending. In the circumstances, responsibility for economic growth devolves primarily to the private sector.

SCANT FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Unfortunately for Jamaica, domestic capital remains skittish and not too many foreigners are lining up to invest their money here. Indeed, while foreign direct investment (FDI) recovered from the collapse of recent years, FDI of US$381 million was only around half the annual average during the early half of the 2000s. It peaked at approximately US$1.4 billion in 2008.

In the meantime, in an economy that has had annual average growth of less than one per cent a year for four decades, official unemployment is nearly 16 per cent, and twice that among young people. Many of those who have jobs are severely underemployed.

Jamaica desperately needs investment, economic growth and job creation - an important context to Omar Davies' elaboration on Tuesday on China Harbour Engineering Company's (CHEC) proposal for a trans-shipment port and industrial park in the Portland Bight/Goat Islands areas off the island's south coast.

The project would be worth upwards of US$1.5 billion. It has, however, spawned critics ranging from those conjuring images of Chinese hordes absconding with Jamaican jobs, to kind of neo-Luddian presumption and biases against industrial development.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

Some, genuinely perhaps, have concerns that the proposed project is planned for an environmentally protected area, although the region is also the home of major industrial plants.

Dr Davies, the transport and works minister, was frank, in so far as is possible at this point, about the projected scope of the project. He insisted that final decisions would be subject to appropriate environmental analyses.

That would include, we expect, CHEC's proposal for a coal-fired plant to generate power for the facility at a cost that would make it economically feasible. We appreciate the global debate over carbon emissions from electricity-generating plants that burn coal. But note, too, the emergence of 'clean coal' technologies, carbon sequestration technique; the fact that coal remains a cheap form of energy, as well as vast numbers of emerging economies using developing electricity plants that burn coal. The coal issue is worthy of robust discussion.

But on the project more broadly, it cannot be beyond the capacity of Jamaicans to balance the environmental issues posed by the proposed location of this project, with the need to lift Jamaicans out of perpetual poverty by generating growth and jobs.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.

[Sir X]

Ja Waives Visa Requirements For Chinese Tourists
Published: Thursday | February 27, 2014 2 Comments
China's ambassador to Jamaica, Dong Xiaojun, yesterday said the waiver of the visa requirements for Chinese to visit the land of sea and sun is likely to be widely well-received by persons in the east Asian country.

Tourism Minister Dr Wykeham McNeill announced that the removal of the visa restriction comes against the background of China's "potential for growth as a tourism source market for Jamaica".

He noted that while China was now the largest spender in international tourism globally, it has been difficult to "achieve substantial growth in Chinese arrivals, as many Chinese citizens have had to travel great distances simply to obtain a visa from the Jamaican Embassy in Beijing".

Dong told The Gleaner the waiver of the visa requirements was "very good and exciting news for Chinese tourists".

He added: "I believe that Chinese tourists will definitely take full advantage of this decision, especially now that Jamaica is getting better and better known in China with Usain Bolt and reggae music and Blue Mountain Coffee."

During a visit to China last year, Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller had underscored the Government's intention to tap into the travel-rich Chinese market.

"We want the Chinese visitors to visit with us in Jamaica and for Jamaicans to visit China," the prime minister had said.

China, in 2013, recorded 72.5 million outbound trips for the first three quarters of 2013. Chinese tourists spent US$102 billion abroad in 2012. Only 2,420 Chinese tourists visited Jamaica last year.

PLANNING TO WOO VISITORS

During a Jamaica House press briefing yesterday, McNeill said his ministry would be using an upcoming trade show to woo travel agents and airlines in a bid to secure an inflow of Chinese visitors to the island. He said while the bid to get Chinese tourists would not commence with direct flights between Jamaica and China, the ministry was actively pursuing ways of connectivity.

"What we will do is that we (will) go now to the trade show. … We will meet with the travel agents and tour operators who actually move people, and then have discussions with them to see what the possibilities are," McNeill said.

"My team and I will now be looking at strengthening the marketing efforts of the JTB (Jamaica Tourist Board), part of which will involve the director of tourism and I attending the Shanghai Trade Show in April. We will also be continuing our discussions on developing airlift arrangements from the region," McNeill said.

Dong, meanwhile, is confident that once tourists begin spreading the word about the Jamaican experience, Chinese will begin to descend on Jamaica in droves.

"As soon as the Chinese tourist hears the news of the visa waiver, they will definitely want to come to visit Jamaica, and they will definitely be impressed by the beautiful scenery of Jamaica and also the hospitality of the Jamaican people. The word whispers out. The first group of Chinese tourists, when they get back home, they will tell their friends and their colleagues what they have experienced here," Dong said.

The Chinese ambassador has admitted that while there is potential, the distance and the absence of direct flight pose a problem. He noted, however, that "many tourists are already in the United States and Canada".

"I think it is an extended lap of a trip. Most likely, they will be looking for multi-destination tourism. I think Jamaica should prepare some packages for Jamaica and some Caribbean countries in this region so that the Chinese tourist will have a choice."

[Don1]

KINGSTON, Jamaica -- Environment watchdog group Jamaica Environment Trust (JET) has penned an “open letter” to Minister of Transport and Works, Dr Omar Davies, posing numerous questions regarding Government’s decision to allow the construction of a deep water pier and other block-and-steel development in the Portland Bight Protected Area.
JET’s unedited letter to Davies:
Dear Minister Davies,
We have read your statement to Parliament on February 25, 2014 on the proposal for China Harbour Engineering Company (CHEC) to construct a port and industrial park in the Portland Bight Protected Area, in the vicinity of the Goat Islands. We have the following questions and observations:
1) The Jamaican public still does not know what due diligence was done to select this site, what other sites were considered and the reasons for rejection. Since this project was first announced in August 2013, various experts, including, a past President of the Jamaica Institute of Engineers have called into question the suitability of this location and suggested alternative sites. Has the Government asked CHEC to consider other sites for the proposed port? Is it that CHEC is only interested in the Goat Islands for the construction of the port?
2) There has still been no response from the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) to the errors contained in the Environmental Management Scoping Study (EMSR), which were identified in November 2013 by eight agencies and two scientists from the University of the West Indies. It appears that despite these errors, you continue to rely on this flawed study. In brief the errors and omissions of the EMSR were – cursory literature review, scant field observations, inadequate consultation with critical stakeholders, inaccuracies in descriptions of the rare, threatened and endangered species, a too narrow concentration on the Goat Islands themselves (we now know that a large proportion of this development will be on the mainland, so this omission is especially serious) and proposal of mitigation measures that are not feasible.
3) The details of the project as laid out in your presentation confirm the environmentally devastating nature of this port for the coast of a protected area, including the construction of a coal fired coal plant. The serious public health impacts of coal as a source of energy are extremely well documented. It is ironic that the GOJ would consider this in view of its emphasis on the threat presented to Jamaica by climate change and its establishment of a Ministry of Climate Change.
4) We note the emphasis on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, but much is going to depend on the quality of the EIA, the amount of time that is allowed for this to be properly done, and in the event of approval, the resources and political will to monitor and enforce permit conditions. The issues of alternatives and cumulative impacts are generally weak in Jamaican EIAs and it is these issues which are of critical importance in this case.
5) Despite your assurances to the contrary, public consultation and transparency remain inadequate. The Government has denied all of the requests that the Jamaica Environment Trust (JET) has made under the Access to Information Act. To be more specific, our request for the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Port Authority and CHEC and the proposals and draft agreement proposed by CHEC have been exempted from disclosure on the grounds that the logistics hub initiative is a central plank to Jamaica’s growth strategy and that the Government’s growth strategy influences the monetary policy. In your previous statement to Parliament on September 10, 2013 you stated, “We invite those who have already taken a position in opposition to the project to place in the public domain some alternatives which would simultaneously protect the natural environment and assist the population.” The documents denied to us likely contain information that would allow us and other interested stakeholders to propose suitable alternatives to Goat Islands.
6) You state that you have met with all the environmental protection agencies. We do not know to which agencies you refer. You have not included JET in these consultations. In addition we can say with certainty that the communities in proximity to the Old Harbour and Goat Islands aspects of this project are still clamouring for more detailed information.
7) The net benefits to Jamaica of this project remain poorly articulated. If we are going to destroy a significant natural area protected under four different Jamaican laws and two international conventions, it should not be for crumbs.
8) We note the existence of an Initial Framework Agreement (IFA) between CHEC and the GOJ and, notwithstanding the response that we received from the Port Authority to our request for a copy of the MOU, we will be requesting a copy of the IFA under the Access to Information Act in the usual manner.
We remain committed to economic development for all Jamaicans that is both equitable and sustainable.

Good questions!

No Russian Ships (or Chinese) in sight!

[Jangle]

"Only 2,420 Chinese tourists visited Jamaica last year."

If a Chinese tourist ask a hotel worker fi likkle wata.......but the worke bring him toothbrush because him see the chiney man a skin him teeth......And man on ya a talk bout transfer of technology....kmt. The Chiney tourist love fi gamble, but fi how many years we a argue bout legalizing casino gambling....kmft.