Peter Espeut | Some steps forward

A new cabinet with mostly old faces was sworn in on Wednesday. Time will allow for more critical analysis, but I must mention two positive developments, and one must give praise where praise is due.

First, the responsibility for constitutional reform has been removed from Marlene Malahoo Forte, a most welcome move. She made a shambles of it, and must take much of the blame for it going nowhere, despite the regime’s two-thirds majority in the lower house; although the rest of the previous cabinet cannot escape their collective responsibility.

Her first mistake was to appoint an un-representative Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC). The constitution of a nation is the foundation upon which representative democracy is built, and when from day one you announce that so-and-so on the CRC “represents” the Church when the Church did not send them, you reveal that you really don’t understand representative democracy. The Church protested, and was invited to send a true representative, which is what should have happened in the first place.

But the fake “Church representative” remained on the CRC, as well as fake “representatives” of civil society and youth. The persons named knew they represented only themselves or the person who named them, and should have publicly accepted their appointments on that understanding.

“What gawn bad a mawnin cyah come good a evenin, whoay!”

The CRC never recovered from that wrong move, which discredited its very existence. The whole constitutional reform effort lacked input from civil society and youth which could have been obtained through genuine representation and consultation, which would have made its output less objectionable.

The second mistake was to announce that the reform process was to be executed in two discrete phases. The Independence constitution determined that removal of the British monarch as head of state required the consent of the electorate in a referendum, and that was to be the substance of Phase One. On only that matter was public consultation mandatory. All other changes were to take place in Phase Two where the government could use its two-third’s majority to force them through the lower house without the consensus of the opposition or the public. And no discussion on Phase Two matters was to take place until the public had consented to Phase One. “Puss inna bag!”

GINNALSHIP

That just smacked of ginnalship. The government could expect to win the referendum, and then to have a free hand afterward. Who could agree to that in a low-trust-in-government situation?

All matters to be included in Jamaica’s new constitution should be fully ventilated, with widespread public consultation and public education before any referendum, so that a “yes” vote means more than the removal of the British monarchy.

Minister Malahoo Forte’s poor judgement and dismal handling of the constitutional reform process caused its failure, and she earned her dismissal. Prime Minister Holness is to be congratulated for putting the process in other hands. Let us see if Minister Chuck takes a different approach, especially now that the ruling party is forced to seek consensus since it has lost its two-thirds majority.

It would be remiss of me if I did not express my appreciation to the Prime Minister for putting environmental matters in a stand-alone ministry. Over the decades the environment portfolio has been compromised by being placed in ministries alongside other portfolios with environmentally-damaging subject matter.

Until recently, the prime minister found himself in that position. A minister with responsibility to growing the economy and creating jobs will be tempted to compromise the integrity of the natural environment in so doing. Such a minister is in an invidious position of profound conflict of interest.

I recall the case of the limestone quarry proposed for the Bengal Cliffs on Puerto Bueno Mountain in St Ann. High quality limestone much in demand overseas occurs in close proximity to the port at Rio Bueno: read economic growth and job creation. Nevertheless, the government’s environmental regulator – the National Environmental and Planning Agency (NEPA) – denied a permit for the quarry because it would irreparably damage rare and intact forest ecosystems. The Minister of the Environment – also the Minister of Economic Growth and Job Creation – overruled NEPA to howls of protest from conservationists, including myself.

CONFLICTED

I also recall Peter Phillips as Minister of Health and the Environment being similarly conflicted when the Environment part of his ministry issued a stop order on the Health part of his ministry when the non-functioning sewage treatment plant at the Spanish Town Hospital was polluting the long-suffering Rio Cobre.

Easton Douglas as Minister of the Housing and the Environment waived the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for a housing scheme at Kennedy Grove in Clarendon, only to have several units covered to the rafters by rising flood waters; indecent haste in approving housing projects! The EIA would have picked up the fact that the site was flood-prone.

Douglas was forced to resign when he gave a permit for housing to be built in Hope Gardens.

My regular readers will know that over the last 30 years I have lobbied in this column for a stand-alone Ministry if the Environment, free from portfolio conflicts of interest which compromise the integrity of the natural environment. It would be remiss of me not to express my pleasure at this move.

Minister Samuda must now resolve the conflict created by the merger of the Natural Resources and Conservation Authority (NRCA) with the Town and Country Planning Authority into NEPA. The NRCA sometimes finds itself forced to give planning permission for environmentally damaging projects.

On top of that, the merger has produced the strange situation of the NRCA having the legal responsibility under the NRCA Act to conserve the natural environment, but having no staff to do so; all staff are employed by NEPA, but there is no NEPA Act.

Let us see how it all works out, but clearly learning has taken place.

Any learning in integrity matters?

Peter Espeut is an environmentalist and a development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com