Peter Espeut

I am at present attending a United Nations conference in Madrid, Spain, concerned with sustainable development. In countless policy documents, the previous Jamaican Government - to its credit - committed itself to sustainable development, and the manifesto of the new party in power has done the same thing. If we are all talking about the same thing, there should be no disagreement, but sometimes I wonder.

Probably the best known definition of sustainable development is from the 1987 UN Commission on Environment and Development: 'Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.' It is economic growth which does not damage the natural environment, thereby reducing the capacity of future generations to develop.

It is so easy to mess up, to launch a project which looks good, and promises a bright future, but which does more long- and medium-term damage than good. To avoid unsustainable development, every country must have a watchdog agency which separates the wheat from the chaff, which encourages sustainable projects, guides poorly designed projects along the right path, and says a firm 'No!' to the unredeemable ones.

The Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA) was set up in 1991 to do just that. It is important to have a meaningful balance of power in these matters, otherwise the developmental lobby will have a free hand to do anything they want and mash up the country in the name of progress.

Delicate balance

At the same time, no good project which creates jobs and will lead to sustainable development must be unnecessarily hindered or obstructed by the watchdog, no matter how well intentioned. There is a delicate balance here, which must be guarded jealously and scrupulously maintained. To do this is to be fair to the present, but especially to future generations of Jamaicans yet unborn.

When the previous government announced in 2000 that it intended to merge the environmental regulatory agency - the NRCA - with the Town Planning Department, to form the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA), I opposed it in and out of this column. I argued that the environmental voices within the merged entity would be drowned out by the voices of unsustainable development. I argued that it was absolutely essential to have a stand-alone environmental agency free from the conflicts of interest coming from those who want development at any cost.

My fears came to pass, and NEPA acted as if it were an agency whose mission was primarily to facilitate projects. The NRCA mandate to protect watersheds, manage coastal areas and create national parks, marine parks and other protected areas fell by the wayside, and NEPA became an application-approving branch of government. The balance of power shifted in favour of the anti-environmental forces.

I see that the new government recognises this, and has announced that it intends to create a new stand-alone agency to regulate the environment, and NEPA is to remain an application-processing agency.

Sustainable development

This is just what many of us who are concerned about sustainable development want; we want the investment and the jobs and the economic growth, but we want to be sure of the conservation of our forests and wetlands and coral reefs at the same time, because we need them in order to have a good quality of life for us, human beings. The balance of power in the society must be such as to guarantee genuine sustainable development. I hope that the new government will keep this promise.

Here at this conference on Biosphere Reserves, organised by UNESCO, a range of countries explain how they are working towards sustainable development through the creation of entities which protect biological diversity, while providing opportunities for sustainable livelihoods. Jamaica is slow off the mark; there are no biosphere reserves in the English-speaking Caribbean, while many of our neighbours, have them, including Colombia, Mexico, Cuba and the Dominican Republic have them. All are foci of nature and heritage tourism, to which our Master Plan for Sustainable Tourism commits us, but we are still rushing ahead with the old-style environmentally unfriendly type.

I am getting a lot of good ideas here in Madrid. Onward to sustainable development!