Chapter 5 - Stakeholders and Public Consultation

The stakeholders and public consultation component comprised two distinct activities:

b) Follow-up meetings and interviews with representatives from the fishing communities and cooperatives

As part of the stakeholders and public consultation process within the EIA, a Public Meeting was held on 3 August 2000 at 1700 hrs at the Jamaica Conference Centre. The meeting was chaired by Hon. B. Gloudon, OJ, who informed participants of the purpose and agenda and also introduced the members of the head table and resource persons. She informed participants that the Public Forum was organized as part of the EIA public consultation process in order to obtain their comments and concerns and to try to address them, as much as possible, in the EIA. It was noted that the consultation would be a continuous process with follow-ups through the EIA and by the relevant authorities. Therefore, any additional comments were to be sent to the Port Authority.

There were two scheduled presentations: (i) project overview by the PAJ and (ii) presentation on the EIA process and status of the EIA by TEMN. These were followed by an open floor discussion session. There were approximately 150 participants from government agencies, the private sector, University of the West Indies, students environmental network, ENGOs/NGOs, and the fishing communities of Hunts Bay at the Causeway, Greenwich Town, Rae Town, and Port Royal.

Table 6 below provides a summary of the comments, concerns, and an indication of the section in the EIA where concerns were addressed. (See Appendix 4 for list of participants, agenda and full transcript of the Public Forum).

Table 6: Public Forum - Summary of Comments, Concerns, Responses and related sections within EIA document.

	Participant/Group		Summary of Comment/Concerns		Summary of response given/related sections in EIA document
	Dr. David Smith Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust (p31)		-The channel goes very close to the tip of the Palisadoes, what effect will the dredging have on the sunken city, what would be the effect of spoil material being moved and possible drifting over the sunken city? - What kind of work have you done so far with regards to fishing knowing that lots of fishermen fish on the reef, where are you planning to divert the channel, could you expand on those?		The path of the channel is the current path, the proposal is to increase the depth from the current 12.8m to 15-18m.Spoil to be removed to a deep location to be determined, use of silt screens and other ways of reducing the transport of sediments generated from the dredging. With regards fishing, the bottom of the channel has been dredged on several occasions, presently filth and mud. Do not anticipate any significant impact in that particular area. In any case there should be no fishing in the ship channel. Adjacent to the ship channel are extensive seagrass beds, but do not anticipate any significant impacts if done properly using silt screens. *Refer to sections 4.2.4, 4.4.4, 4.4.11, , 6..2.2, 6.3 of the EIA*
	Mr. Hector Lim Jamaica Fisherfolk Cooperative, Port Royal Fishing Cooperative (p33)		- I know the effects of dredging, since the start of the airport. Here is an example of the mollusc, which is now totally wiped out, only a few shrimps left now. What will be the effects on the fishermen who live off shrimps? The main concern is where you are going to put what you dredge. I think that the best place is on the land, east of Fort Augustus, from Courage Gate to Two Sisters to Miami. - Given the information on the lead content and pollution, I am now wondering if the fish is wholesome to eat?		Concerns voiced by most of the participants - to be addressed in the EIA and by the relevant authorities for the proposed project. *Refer to sections 7.3, 7.3.1, 7.3.2 of the EIA*
	Participant Fisherfolk Cooperative at Greenwich Town (p34)		- I confirm what the last person said. Since the last dredging, two seasons of fishing for 2 years in the Palisadoes has stopped. So we know the effect of the dumping of the material on the seabed, net, boat, everything full with mud, scorn everything. So would like the dredging organization to speak to that.		Concerns voiced by most of the participants - to be addressed in the EIA and by the relevant authorities for the proposed project. *Refer to section 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2 of the EIA*
	Mr. John Maxwell (p35)		- If the concentration of chromium and lead in the spoil does not qualify it as toxic, is it legally possible (under the treaties) to dump it anywhere else? - If the circulation of the Harbour is where we think it is, when you dig up toxic waste from where it is going to circulate, then it is going to kill off everything inside the Harbour as well as the marine life where it is going to be placed.		Cannot dispose of toxic waste under current legislation, so need to look where we place it and also at various options including infinite dilution, which would still affect transient species for a short period. *Refer to sections 4.1.4, 6.1.2, 6.3.1 – 6.3.7, 8.1 of the EIA*
	Participant Fisherfolk from Rae Town Fishing Cooperative (p41)		-The dredging that has been done before, was there any compensation for fisherfolk for loss of earnings? - There was a boat that caused a fish kill, the boat is not there now and there was no compensation. When the PAJ tug pass, it mash up the engine, complaint was made. We need compensation!		No compensation discussed or offered. PAJ had given directives to the captains of the tug boats to proceed slowly, they have been conforming, have heard no further complaints, will monitor the situation to make sure that you are not adversely affected. *Refer to section 6.4.1.3, 8.4.3 of the EIA*
	Participant (p43)		- Nothing is said about the cleaning up of the entire Kingston Harbour. Did the people financing the plan take into account the many gullies flowing into the Harbour, absence of recreational activities, ecotourism for Port Royal, etc Is something being done to clean up the entire Harbour, not just for use by ships but for all users and for the best interest of the communities?		Response from NRCA: A proposal exists for the sustainable use of the Harbour. The present situation is a result of piecemeal planning in the past. NRCA commends the PAJ for bringing this matter to the public before the NRCA required it. Proposals for the cleaning up of the Harbour require a new joint approach by the various users and stakeholders. The Port Royal Project for instance would not be successful unless the Harbour Rehabilitation Programme is proceeded with. No one wants to invest in a major project with the sort of water quality problems we have in the Harbour. *Refer to section 8.4.1 of the EIA*
	Mr. Errol Cameron Jamaica Fishermen Cooperative Union, Old Harbour Bay Fishermen Cooperative, Jamaica Coral Reef Action Plan (p49 )		- Too often the resource users are left out of the planning, they need to know how that will be affected and to be a part of the planning process, it is not just about satisfying the Environmental Authorities. - With regards to the protection of endangered species, we should be protecting all species not only the endangered species. - On the compensatory part of the mitigation, I have yet to see a channel through which fishermen can really voice their opinions or make a representation in terms of getting compensation - Re cleaning up of the Harbour, we often go about setting up projects without addressing the basic needs of the environment, at this rate we will never get anywhere.		To be addressed in the EIA and by the relevant authorities for the proposed project. *Refer to section 5.1, 5.2.1-5.2.4, 5.3, 8.4.1 of the EIA*
Senator Anthony Johnson on behalf of Hon. Edward Seaga West Kingston Constituency (p53)		- Applaud effort of the public forum and would like to know what critical lessons were learnt from the effects of the past experience of dredging in the Harbour. Concern about what appears to be efforts to degrade Rakhams Cay (RC). Would like to know the current width of the channel, proposed new width, distance from RC. (Follow-up questions) Would like to know the size of RC and what portion will be taken off? RC, formerly used to hang people is considered a historic and cultural artifact. If RC has only 5% coral cover, if further reduced by this project, would it not threaten RC’s existence? - Request that stakeholders with fishing interest be taken by PAJ on a tour of the channel, pointing out exactly where and what are being proposed. - Would like to know about the nature of the base of the channel, effects of dredging on it, and nature of spill overs.		Width of channel is approx 100m, propose to increase to 200m, require taking off approx 50% of RC. Not talking about taking 100m off the top of RC, but of widening the channel at the sides. Not sure at this time of the portion to be taken off but PAJ was told “no” to Gun Cay. Rakham was a notorious pirate, not sure if want to maintain him, however, only considering removing a portion of RC. 5% coral cover does not mean that 95% is dead, nor was there ever 100% coral cover, it indicates that 5% of the entire reef is made up of corals amount other plants and animals. Would be recommending that stipulation be made to physically hand pick and relocate corals hence minimal impacts. *Refer to sections 4.2.5, 6.2.3 of the EIA*
Mr. Robert Stephens Port Royal Redevelopment Co. (p60)		- Commend PAJ for public forum. Need to look at the past experiences and analyse what caused the fish kill before. Suggest getting in touch with ESL re Port Royal EIA and look at linkages. Now is the time to clean up the entire Harbour, the benefits outweigh costs, should not have to wait for the next 16 year as planned.		No direct response required *Refer to sections 3.4, 8.4.1 of the EIA*
Mr. Gladstone Mitchell Hunts Bay Fishing Village at Causeway (p62)		- Need clarification on the 40 ha dumping in Hunts Bay as mangroves on western side of Gordon Cay are not dry, it is a natural habitat for certain species of shrimp and fish. Existing industries are already polluting the area and affecting the marine habitant, hence urge that you reconsider what is being proposed as you are about to kill off what is left of our livelihood.		Deposition of material would be a gradual process and would not include any toxic material, if any toxic material is placed there it would be completely covered up, but toxic material too soft and therefore unsuitable for reclamation. *Refer to section 6.2.1, 7.3.2, 7.3.2.1, 7.3.3 of the EIA*
Ms Esther Beckford Student Environ. Network (SEN) (p65)		- By what standards do you consider the coral heads fit to be removed and what is the rate of survival?		Removal or corals successfully done in Ocho Rios and in Discovery Bay, albeit on a smaller scale. Survival rate was above 80%. *Refer to section 8.2 of the EIA*
Ms Marva Lynch Causeway Fishing Beach		- Comment: Causeway is our livelihood, now not sure of our faith, would like to be informed. Need sanitary facilities and decent place to conduct business.		No direct response to comment, add to list of issues *Refer to section 5.2.2, 6.4.1.1 of the EIA*
Participant (p67)		- Appreciation of positive move forward for Harbour, however, while thinking of dredging must also think of long term policy for Harbour.		No response required. *Refer to sections 8.4.13 of the EIA*
Mr Lennox Lemard Causeway (p68)		- Everyone is mentioning removing the pollutants from the Harbour, but what are we doing about stopping the pollution from getting into the Harbour - dumping in gullies, industrial waste, etc.?		No direct response to comment, add to list of issues *Refer to section 8.4.1 of the EIA*
Participant (p69)		- Historically, the Harbour was always used for fishing, industries have come in and polluted it and no compensation given to fishermen. The fishermen know and understand the Harbour and can help to solve the problem, need to work with fishermen.		Fishermen - an integral part of the consultation process. *Refer to sections 5.0, 5.1, 5.2, ,5.2.1-5.2.4 of the EIA*
Mr. Warren Blake Scuba Club (p71)		- Have witnessed in the past the depletion of the corals and while recognizes the need to balance development with environment protection, however difficult to comment, suggest information be posted on a website, also provide hard copies in simpler terms so that people can really appreciate what is happening, need information. Have not done any scientific studies but would like to challenge the coral data for Gun Cay. For Rakham Cay, concern about the widening of channel to 200m and the effects on the sunken city.		No widening proposed close to sunken city, only deeping of the channel. *Refer to section 4.2.5, 4.2.6 of the EIA*
Mrs. Donnette Ferguson-Buchanan Jamaica Conservation & Develop. Trust (p74)		- Have any studies been done on the effects of dredging on the Causeway and on Portmore?		Causeway and bridge in question being addressed in Highway 2000 Project. PAJ and Hwy. 2000 Team met and are coordinating activities. *Refer to section 4.4.12, 6.3 of the EIA*
Mr. John Maxwell (p75)		- Follow-up to above question: Would the dredging change the geography of Hunts Bay?		Would be dependent on the results obtained in the EIA *Refer to sections 6.3 of the EIA*
Mr. Henry Rambano Environmental Cttee for Oil Spill (p76)		- Would the dredging of the Harbour and larger ships help to bring back the City of Kingston as it used to be years ago? Who would it help or is it just for dropping off containers?		The expansion of the port has created tremendous economic activities, we are aspiring to keep the Port of Kingston alive. *Refer to section 6.4.1.1, 6.4.1.2, 8.4.1 of the EIA*
Commander Brady Maritime Authority of Jamaica (p78)		- We have just completed a study on the impact on the economy of direct jobs created which showed that for every direct job created, four indirect jobs are also created.		No response required. *Refer to sections 6.4.1.1 of the EIA*
Participant (p78)		- Suggestion: Hope that after the EIA it would be possible to have another public forum		Very likely that the NRCA would require such a forum. *Refer to section 5.3, 8.4.4, 8.4.4.1 of the EIA*
Mr. McKenzie (p79)		- Comment: Would be sensible to clean up the whole Harbour now and not just the ship channel, as all the silt on the eastern side would simply flow back, piers 1 and 2 need attention to bring back the tourist, also for the Port Royal development.		No direct response required. Refer to section 8.4.1 of the EIA
Chairperson (p78)		- If you did not dredge the Harbour what would be the alternative? If ships cannot come in?		Ship cannot come in. Economic activity lost. *Refer to sections 7.2 of the EIA*
Mr. Andrew James SEN (p80)		- If there is a proposal for reclamation at Hunts Bay, how would it be carried out with Sandy Gully and the Main River emptying there?		Reclamation is not very extensive, would serve to expand storage area for containers. Anther part of the reclamation area be considered is the western side of Gordon Cay. Would be addressed in the EIA. *Refer to section 7.3.2, 7.3.2.1 of the EIA*

Following the Public Forum, EIA team members from the socio-economic and the ecology components made several visits and met with representatives of the Fishing Cooperatives and communities of Port Royal, Hunts Bay at Causeway, Greenwich Town and Rae Town. Below is a summary of the follow-up meetings/interviews

· Not supportive of the dredging because of past experiences, but felt that they cannot stop the dredging. Reiterated the extent of destruction of marine habitat and negative impacts on livelihood from the dredging activities for the Airport in the 1950-1960's, Causeway in 1970's when the disposal of material was inside the Harbour. Also the maintenance dredging of Berths 8 and 9 in 1980's, and dredging at Two Sisters in 1995-1996 - when materials were disposed outside of the Harbour, but was not taken far out enough or at depths where the impacts would be minimal. Resulted in destruction of “mussels” (used for bait and also consumed), native and migratory fish species, and nets and boats (very strong repugnant stench).

· Prefer waste material be used for reclamation rather than disposed at sea - minimal impacts on marine life.

· Fisheries Division need to have a stronger presence with regards their custodianship of fishing activities, support to fishing communities and at activities such as the Public Forum.

· Compensation was not discussed and none given. Strongly recommended that compensation be given to those adversely affected in the evident of negative impacts from the proposed dredging, based on loss of earnings. When asked for some idea of the type of monetary compensation that would be considered reasonable based on loss of earnings, an estimated sum of J$100,000 to J$300,000 per fisherman was given. Should be calculated based on loss of income for an agreed period depending on what was impacted and who were affected.

· Alternative to monetary compensation would also be welcomed such as ‘giving back to the community’ in the form of assisting the Fishing Cooperative to become established and regularized. Need land for fishing complex such as the piece of land known as “Coal Wharf.” Assist the Cooperative to implement their Five Year Development Plan which included the establishment of a Sardine Factory.

· Similar past negative experience as above, pollution from industrial activities resulting in fish kill. Suggest building of artificial reef/habitat, public education and capacity building - good fishing habits and security, important for sustainability.

· Industries must be held accountable for the effects of industrial pollution and sewage discharge.

· No objections to reclamation of land at proposed site in Hunts Bay; prefer the combined option of land reclamation and disposal at sea

· Compensation should be provided if project negatively impact on fishing, based on agreed loss of earnings (full time and part time fishermen). Prefer to explore other options such as strongly requesting the PAJ and Government to work in partnership with the fishing communities and assist them with basic infrastructure and amenities such as sanitary facilities and water. Many discussions held in the past about relocation of fishermen at the Causeway, where fishermen were told to identify suitable piece of land, but, fishermen do not know which parcel of land were owned by Government or were available. Need assistance from the Government and the Fisheries Division to identify land and to help develop fishing beach, including sheds for the fishermen.

· Felt that it was more appropriate to build Hunts Bay than dispose material at sea.

· Need to work with the fishing communities to assist them to develop, explore alternative employment opportunities such as employment on the project as well as long term employment, need to empower the people by providing skills training so that they could explore alternative employment other than fishing.

· Similar past negative experience - dredging of Rockfort Power Plant in 1996. Concerned about tugs traveling at full tilt resulting in damage to fishing boats - no compensation provided.

· Main concern surrounds the need for larger boats to enable fishermen to go farther out to sea (fishes not longer in Harbour due to expansion and development), also to carry larger fishing teams, need sanitary facilities, water, electricity, assistance to renovate existing Fishing Cooperative Building. Also felt that government and the private sector should work with the fishing communities and assist in their development.

· Suggestions were made that PAJ/NRCA help to organize a watch dog committee comprising representatives of stakeholder groups and young conservationists.

· It was obvious that all stakeholders and users of the Harbour were very genuinely concerned and interested in the proposed development and in the best interest of the people and their environment. The problem was how to maintain the intricate balance between development and environmental concerns.

· The legality of moving toxic material needs to be determined, also its potential effects.

· There were continued concerns from the fishermen about the impacts of dredging and disposal of material on the marine environment and hence their livelihood, given their past experiences of dredging activities in the Harbour. The need for compensation (financial as well as other options such as working with and assisting the communities as discussed above) should be further explored.

· The need for integrated and sustainable planning of the Harbour, as well as comprehensive clean up efforts, including industrial pollution was identified. Should seek assistance from international companies where possible.

Make EIA document accessible to the public. Request PAJ to organize another public forum.

[1] Mr Hector Lim - Director of Jamaica Fishing Cooperative, and Treasurer of Port Royal Fishing Cooperative Mr Society; Mr Leonard McKen - Vice Chairman.

[2] Mr Roy Johnson - Chairman; Mr Gerald Berlin - Member.

[4] Mr Miguel McKenzie - Property Manager; Mr Andrew Wilson - Member; Mr Peter Dale - Member