Regulatory Law and Local Stakeholder Influences on Green Crime in the Blue Mountains, Jamaica

REGULATORY LAW AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER INFLUENCES ON GREEN CRIME IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS, JAMAICA

TAMEKA SAMUELS-JONES

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2019

To my son, who motivates me to fight for the preservation of nature for the next generation

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This dissertation is only possible because I had the support and encouragement of many people and institutions. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to my adviser Dr. Stephen Perz. I could not have accomplished this research and other landmark academic achievements without his genuine support. I am fortunate to have received, his mentorship, encouragement and guidance. I appreciate him providing a safe haven for me to share my thoughts when the PhD experience seemed to be long and overwhelming. I thank my gracious committee members for their expertise at each step of the design and development of this dissertation. To Dr. Lonn Lanza Kaduce, I am ever more aware of the kindness and humanity that can be found in law because of you. Dr. Krohn, thank you for pushing me to expand my ideas and raise my voice. I am grateful to you for these lifelong lessons. I am thankful to Dr. Cynthia Simmons, for demonstrating a sincere interest in my work and for agreeing to be my external member. I appreciate your candor and generosity.

I acknowledge my sponsors - The American Society of Criminology, The UF

Center for Latin American Studies, The UF Graduate School and the UF Center for

Humanities and the Public Sphere. With their financial support I was able to conduct the research necessary for this dissertation. From my own department, I very much appreciate Dr. Barbara Zsembik, Lisandra Villalobos, Dr. Richard Hollinger and Dr.

Michael Capece for their continued encouragement and support. To my school family –

Johanna, Ryan, Angelica and Steph, you made this journey more beautiful by being a part of it.

I am very grateful to my family for their love and support during this PhD process.

I thank my mother, without whom this journey would not have begun and for

encouraging me to always reach for the stars - since she would be there to catch me if I ever fall. I thank my father for his assistance in accessing remote indigenous villages and my sister for accommodating incoherent late-night phone calls. To the love of my life, CJay, I appreciate you for holding it all together while I worked hard to accomplish my goals. Thank you for listening patiently to all my dissertation ideas without asking me what I was rambling on about.

Above all, I thank God for his grace, his mercy and the purpose that he has on my life and on this work.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 4

LIST OF TABLES ...... 9

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 10

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 13

ABSTRACT ...... 14

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 16

Theoretical Framework ...... 19 Legal Pluralism & Legitimacy ...... 19 Community Based Natural Resource Management ...... 21 Green Cultural Criminology ...... 23 Research Questions ...... 25 Research Site ...... 28 Jamaica’s Regulatory Framework ...... 29 The Maroons ...... 33 The Rastafarians ...... 34 The Agrarian Communities ...... 35 Research Procedures and Methodology ...... 35 Format and Organization of the Dissertation ...... 40

2 LEGAL PLURALISM IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS ...... 44

The Maroons in Jamaica’s Environmental Legal Landscape ...... 44 Literature Review ...... 45 Legal Pluralism ...... 45 The Role of Legitimacy in Legal Pluralism...... 48 Forsyth’s Typology of Legal Pluralism ...... 50 Background and Setting...... 53 Legal Pluralism in the Blue Mountains ...... 55 Maroon Legal Culture ...... 56 Methods ...... 61 Data Collection ...... 61 Sampling ...... 63 Credibility Strategies ...... 63 Participant Observation ...... 64 The Interviews ...... 65 Findings ...... 67

Environmental Threats in the BJCM and Maroon Law ...... 68 Generational Values ...... 75 Legal Tradition and Environmental Sovereignty ...... 78 Discussion ...... 84

3 THE ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW ...... 91

Post-Colonialism, Rastafarianism and Culture heritage ...... 91 Literature Review ...... 93 Post-colonial Theory and Rastafarianism ...... 93 Intangible Cultural Heritage and Environmental Law ...... 95 Religious Belief and Community-Based Natural Resource Management ...... 97 Background and Setting ...... 99 Rastafarianism and Intangible Cultural Heritage Law and the Environment ... 101 Methods ...... 105 Data Collection ...... 105 Sampling ...... 106 Credibility Strategies ...... 106 Participant Observation ...... 107 Findings ...... 110 State Oppression - The History of Rastafarian Oppression ...... 111 Rastafarian Religious Customs and Land Use ...... 115 Challenges in Regulating Rastafarian Land Use ...... 120 Moral Rewards ...... 121 Religious Belief and Environmental Sustainability ...... 131 Rastafarians and ‘the Commons’ ...... 135 Discussion ...... 136

4 MOVING MOUNTAINS ...... 140

The Political Economy of Rural Green Crime in the Blue Mountains ...... 140 Literature Review ...... 142 The Political Economy and Green Crime...... 143 Deterrence Challenges in Green Crimes ...... 145 Background and Setting ...... 148 The Role of the Coffee Economy ...... 151 Methods ...... 153 Data Collection ...... 153 Sampling ...... 154 Credibility Strategies ...... 154 Participant Observation ...... 155 Findings ...... 157 Land Use Change ...... 157 Government Fragilities and Conflicts ...... 158 Inadequate Financial Resources for Farmers ...... 163 Common Agricultural Practices in the BJCM ...... 166 Inadequate Enforcement ...... 172

Discussion ...... 176

5 CONCLUSION ...... 184

Summary of Key Findings ...... 185 Preliminary Comparative Analysis ...... 189 Broad Conclusions ...... 192 Implications for Stakeholders ...... 194 Future Research Needs ...... 197

APPENDIX

A SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ...... 199

B NEWSPAPER REPORTS ...... 202

C INFORMED CONSENT ...... 211

Semi-Structured Interviews ...... 211 Informed Consent – Local Stakeholders, Community Residents and Coffee Farmers ...... 211 Informed Consent – Regulatory Bodies; Government Officials ...... 212

D NEPA ENFORCEMENT DATA ...... 213

E JCDT DELEGATION INSTRUMENT ...... 215

LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 224

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 232

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

1-1 Bodies with regulatory oversight of the BJCM...... 30

1-2 Field Sites for Interviews with Key Informants in BJCM User Groups ...... 37

1-3 Interviews with Representatives of Governmental Agencies and Park Rangers ...... 37

2-1 Number of Maroon Respondents by Status ...... 66

3-1 Number of Rastafarian Respondents ...... 110

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 The Blue & John Crow Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2017 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 16

1-2 Deforestation in The Blue & John Crow Mountains, Jamaica taken in July, 2017 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 29

2-1 Tainos Queen at the 10th Annual Maroon Conference, Portland, Blue Mountains, Jamaica. Photo taken in 2018 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 57

2-2 Letter dated July 5, 1962 from Tom Driberg (British Minister of Parliament) to Reginald Maudling (Secretary of State for the Colonies) seeking clarification on the rights of the Maroons prior to Jamaica’s Independence on August 6, 1962. Photo taken at the Charles Town Maroon Museum by Tameka Samuels-Jones in 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 58

2-3 One of several signs reflecting Maroon land ownership, Portland, Blue Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2018 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 60

2-4 Maroon Meeting on August 1, 2018. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels- Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 62

2-5 On the trail to a sacred Maroon site in August 2018. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 64

2-6 Photo with Colonel Kim, Charles Town Maroons, taken for Tameka Samuels- Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 66

2-7 Fire at a Maroon Myal Ceremony, Blue Mountains, Jamaica. Photo taken with Tameka Samuels-Jones in June 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 71

2-8 Sign imploring the Maroon community to stop poisoning the river, Blue Mountains, Jamaica. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 73

2-9 Traditional Maroon Fish Sinking Pot. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels- Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 75

2-10 Young unemployed Maroon. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones in August 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 77

2-11 Blue Draws, Traditional Maroon Pastry made from cornmeal and cooked in Banana leaves. Taken in June 2018 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 80

2-12 Maroon Myal ceremony. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 81

2-13 Open but derelict Park Ranger station in Millbank, Upper Rio Grande Valley. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 84

2-14 My last day with the Park Rangers, Blue Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2018 for Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 90

3-1 The closed gates of the Rastafari Theocratic Government (RTG). The RTG is a failed attempt to centralize Rastafarianism using a hierarchical monitoring governance structure. Respondents advised that this idea was advanced by elites who sought to control Rastafarianism and was doomed to failure since it is counterculture to Rastafari’s principles of equality. Photo courtesy of author...... 102

3-2 Dressed in Rastafarian attire during fieldwork at the School of Vision Rastafarian Village, BJCM. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2017. Photo courtesy of author...... 108

3-3 Rastafarians at a Nyabinghi ceremony. These ceremonies involve drumming, dancing and chanting and reinforce social cohesion and group membership. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, August 2018 . Photo courtesy of author. 119

3-4 Farming with a Rastafarian. To Rastafarians, farming their own produce is an essential part of maintaining self-sufficiency. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 123

3-5 Rastafarian craft for sale. Rastafarians rely heavily on the economic role that each member plays through the moral economy. I addition to ensuring self- sufficiency, this also supports social cohesion and a lack of reliance on western notions of economic success. Photo courtesy of author...... 126

3-6 River in the BJCM frequently used by Rastafarians for bathing and washing their hair. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, August 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 128

3-7 Photo of one of my Rastafarian hosts in traditional Rastafarian attire. Rastafarians incorporate aspects of African heritage in all spheres of their lives including dress. In so doing, Rastafarians symbolize their faith to other members of society, and further reflect their rejection of western ideals. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 129

3-8 A traditional Rastafarian breakfast of bananas, papaya and pineapple served in Bamboo. The Rastafarians reflect a deep respect for nature through their diet and simplistic lifestyle. However, the religious movement does not believe n population control, which places additional stress on the sensitive ecosystem of the BJCM. Taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, August 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 134

3-9 Photo with “Artsy,” July 2018. Artsy has crafted numerous pieces of art for sale over the past 50 years since becoming Rastafarian. During our informal conversations, Artsy expressed that he could sense that I was a strong advocate of environmental protection and therefore I should consider transitioning to Rastafarianism. Though honored by his suggestion, I promised Artsy that I would continue to advocate for environmental protection through my dedication to research. Photo courtesy of author...... 139

4-1 Beautiful flora, Blue Mountains. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 149

4-2 Interviewing a strawberry farmer in the Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 156

4-3 Illegal Piping to a farm in the Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 158

4-4 Garbage along the Nature Trail, The Blue & John Crow Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2017 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author...... 160

4-5 Dilapidated sign in the Blue Mountains evidencing funding from UNDP for Climate Change. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 162

4-6 Traditional 60 lb. Coffee Bean Box, Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 165

4-7 Popular Pesticides used by Farmers in the Blue Mountains. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 171

4-8 Grinding Blue Mountain Coffee. Activities such as these could spur economic growth through controlled eco-tourism and the direct sale of coffee to guests. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 176

5-1 Overlooking the Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author...... 198

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AGD Attorney General’s Department

BJCM Blue and John Crow Mountains

BJCMNP Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park

BPFA Bowden Pen Farmer’s Association

CBO Community-based Organization

CIB Coffee Industry Board

JCDT Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust

NEPA National Environment and Planning Agency

NGO Non-Government Organization

NWC National Water Commission

PIOJ Planning Institute of Jamaica

RADA Rural Agricultural Development Agency

SIDS Small Island Developing States

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UNESCO United Nations Education and Scientific Council

UWI University of the West Indies

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

REGULATORY LAW AND LOCAL STAKEHOLDER INFLUENCES ON GREEN CRIME IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS, JAMAICA

Tameka Samuels-Jones

August 2019

Chair: Stephen Perz Major: Criminology, Law and Society

This dissertation examines the importance of legal pluralism for environmental regulatory compliance in a developing country context. Green cultural criminological research has linked environmental regulatory compliance to perceptions of State authority based on diverse cultural and traditional norms. Yet few research studies exist on how this legal pluralism impacts environmental regulatory compliance in post- colonial, developing country contexts.

To address this gap, this research examines how environmental regulatory compliance in Jamaica is impacted by conditions of legal pluralism in the internationally renowned Blue & John Crow Mountains. I focus on three different groups of resources users around protected areas in the BJCM: the Maroons, Rastafarians and local farmers. Each has a different ethnic identity and history, and thus contrasting legal claims and degrees of legal autonomy from the Jamaican state with regard to their resource use. I conducted semi-structured interviews, participant observation and document analysis to determine the factors that impact environmental regulatory compliance among these legally pluralist three groups. Data were collected over two three-month periods.

Findings reveal that as a result of legal pluralism, there is an ambiguous relationship between state environmental regulators and the three groups regarding the legitimacy of state and local environmental governance authority. This ambiguity has become manifest in debates in this region regarding the extent to which access to indigenous and sacred land should be restricted under State law as environmental protectionism. Yet the findings do not provide a simple causal explanation that links legal pluralism to environmentally harmful behavior. Rather, the findings instead call attention to the a) the ways in which indigenous groups and state bodies can benefit from a reciprocal relationship, the role of international law in domestic regulatory compliance and the impact of market forces on regulatory compliance. These findings offer recommendations for researchers, local residents, religious and indigenous groups and government officials involved in natural resource management in legally pluralist societies.

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-1: The Blue & John Crow Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2017 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

The importance of sound policies and institutions for effective environmental protection is well documented (see for example, Mulder, et al. 2005, Dietz, et al. 2003,

Schmink, 2004). Yet cultural differences, traditional forms of authority and subjective perceptions regarding the legitimacy of rules of law also significantly impact the effectiveness of environmental regulation. In post-colonial contexts in particular, issues of legal pluralism often threaten environmental protection efforts (Benda-Beckman,

1984). In these societies, legal pluralism often results in non-compliance from local peoples who view their indigenous or customary law as more legitimate than the legal

system of the State (Forsyth, 2007). Additional research is particularly important in such cases, for local peoples and States may struggle with reconciling rules and norms influenced by an indigenous culture in contrast to Western colonial influence.

Within criminology, research on legal pluralism has largely been conducted within the scope of international law (Shah, 2005). That research tends to emphasize legal pluralism as a basis for comparative cross-national study rather than as an examination of non-compliance within legally pluralist societies. Therefore, a research gap exists in this regard. With respect to the environment, criminology’s sub-discipline of green cultural criminology acknowledges the significance of cultural dynamics for environmental harm (Brisman et al. 2014). In particular, green cultural criminology is concerned with how the illegal use of natural resources contributes to conflict based on social and cultural differences. Despite this theoretical interest, little research exists in this sub-discipline or criminology as a whole on the impact of legal pluralism on green crime.

Particularly troubling is the dearth of this research in the Caribbean region, including as compared to other parts of Latin America. Given the Caribbean’s diverse socio-legal makeup and heavy economic reliance on agriculture and tourism, there is a need for research on legal pluralism with regard to resource use to guide environmental policy. In Jamaica, this need is evidenced by studies which indicate that pollution and deforestation are contributing to high rates of environmental degradation (Jaffe, 2016,

Boman et al. 2015, Hyslop et al. 2012, Lapointe et al. 2011). Absent from the available research on Jamaica is information regarding the extent to which legal pluralism impacts environmental protection efforts.

This research therefore examines the role of legal pluralism in producing green crime in Jamaica. Using the Blue & John Crow Mountains (BJCM) as a case study, this research explores how legal pluralism impacts the perceived legitimacy of, and compliance with, State environmental laws by local peoples who reside within this protected area. I focus on the Maroon and Rastafarian communities, both of which have established locally autonomous legal structures, as well as local agrarian communities, which have not, for comparative analysis of green crime in the BJCM. The Maroons were granted protected status and legal autonomy in 1739 and maintain that status today post-Independence. The BJCM also provide a home to several Rastafarian villages. While legal autonomy was not officially granted to the Rastafarians, they nonetheless enjoy the protected status of a religious group and on that basis declared their legal autonomy. Agrarian communities within the buffer zone have also maintained cultural and traditional farming techniques. Residents of these farming communities are subject to State laws, since they have no official protected status or other legal standing to declare autonomous rule. However, their perception of State environmental laws, and the extent to which they have been influenced by the neighboring Maroon and

Rastafarian communities, raise questions about their perceptions and compliance.

From the perspective of the State, the BJCM represents an internationally recognized protected area which requires the prohibition of various forms of resource use that could damage local ecosystems. However, these perceptions may not be shared by local stakeholders for whom resource use is inextricably tied to cultural status, agricultural land use and ancestral worship. This milieu thus provides an ideal

context for comparatively examining the challenges of securing environmental regulatory compliance in a protected area characterized by legal pluralism.

Theoretical Framework

The problem of perceptions and compliance with State environmental laws by autonomous groups lies at the nexus of literatures on legal pluralism, green criminology and community based natural resource management (CBNRM). Legal pluralism offers a theoretical framework for examining how different legal norms are constructed within a society and the conflict which may arise from the contestation of the legitimacy of State authority. Green cultural criminology features the role of culture, whether manifest in ethnicity, religious belief or traditional practices, as they may contravene codified State rules and regulations. Work in CBNRM encompasses debates over the effectiveness and sustainability of communities as collective managers of common-pool resources.

While these three literatures are all relevant to the problem at hand, they offer important complementarities by addressing each other’s gaps. While the CBNRM literature acknowledges heterogeneity in community management practices, it does not examine how constructions of legitimacy impact the criminalization of management decisions (Rivers et al. 2011). Whereas legal pluralism largely ignores the vagaries of natural resource management, and CBNRM does not attend to the possible criminal implications of non-compliance, green cultural criminology explicitly addresses the legal implications of autonomous decision making, including in the case of community resource management.

Legal Pluralism & Legitimacy

Legal Pluralism refers to a society in which two or more legal systems coexist

(Merry, 2013). Legal pluralism is not a theory of law or law’s functions but rather a

description of alternative understandings and practices of law, particularly among the less powerful members of society (Merry, 2013). A legal pluralism framework privileges three critical questions (Merry 2013): 1) How does State law affect social life inside and outside formal legal institutions? 2) How do disjunctions between local ideas of justice and formal State laws help us understand non-compliance? And 3) How is the law in practice shaped through the interactions of multiple legal orders?

Legal pluralism highlights a critical pluralistic worldview that motivates the examination of how distinct groups experience and perceive laws (Schlosberg, 1999).

Conflicts between indigenous rules and State law are complex issues based on different concepts of legal authority. For legal pluralism, the differences may be best examined through a critical lens which does not support any one stakeholder’s view, but instead seeks to examine diverse perspectives. As a research tradition, critical theory in legal pluralism is predominantly concerned with distortions or inconsistencies between what is inter-subjectively desired based on the norms, values and beliefs of different stakeholders within a society and their respective material conditions (Murray and

Ozanne, 1991). If the norms, values and beliefs of multiple stakeholders in a society are not aligned, then this may create conflict based on each group’s perceived legitimacy of

“the Other’s” right to impose rules and regulations.

Central to questions of non-compliance with laws under legal pluralism is the issue of competing sources of authority and thus legitimacy. Weber argued that legitimacy is a type of authority which may be defined as “the probability that a command with a specific content will be obeyed by a given group of persons” (1947,

152). From Weber’s perspective, legitimacy is a perception or belief held by a social

group that voluntarily compels the obedience of that group to the State. Legitimacy is thus the confidence or fear by citizens with respect to a government; authority is the power of a government to command obedience among citizens. When laws of the State are determined to be legitimate by citizens, they are assigned a greater degree of authority to the extent that the commands or actions are obeyed voluntarily (1986, 31).

Of course, legitimacy and thus authority may come from sources other than the

State. For Weber (1978, 215), traditional authority is based on “the belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority over them.”

Therefore, regardless of whether formal rules are state-based or tradition-based, legitimacy carries with it a higher probability for compliance with a particular law. Thus, if social groups that recognize traditional authority over State authority do not view environmental regulatory laws as legitimate, there may be a lack of regulatory compliance. Legal pluralism thus provides a framework based on authority and legitimacy for understanding why stakeholders may engage in non-compliance with

State laws. We thus gain an account for how a community’s traditional authority may be seen as legitimate and thus result in conflict with State environmental regulations. This however begs questions about the conditions under which communities view State laws as authoritative and legitimate. An examination of how a social group defines legitimate authority as evident in the formulation and implementation of its own rules provides a basis for understanding the underpinnings of non-compliance with State environmental law.

Community Based Natural Resource Management

CBNRM literature takes as its point of departure a focus on community characteristics and decision processes as determinants of the effectiveness and

sustainability of natural resource management. A key point of departure of CBNRM is that national laws may not be well-suited to local resource governance in different ecosystems; one size does not fit all. CBNRM thus valorizes local knowledge and community management history as a basis for sustainability. Of course, this does not mean the State merely disappears from consideration (Hajjar et al. 2013).

On the contrary, the CBNRM literature features the capacities of communities, but also recognizes the role of the State, which brings up questions of power in resource governance. Ostrom’s early work emphasizes that people are more likely to follow rules that they develop and apply themselves rather than rules imposed from the outside (Ostrom, 1990). Community-based rules are therefore granted greater legitimacy. Community legitimacy on its own however does not ensure successful environmental governance, since local rules that are perceived to be legitimate may not necessarily be environmentally friendly. Agrawal, et al. (1997) note, for example, that the analysis of CBNRM requires attention to how power is exercised, by what authority, and the consequences for State-community relations in environmental governance.

Dynamics of power and authority are reflected in the relationships between local peoples and external actors such as the State. When State influence is strong but communities are well-organized, there is conflict over local resource governance

(Agrawal, et al. 1997). Conflicts involve divergent interests and contrasting perspectives on legitimate sources of authority for governing environmental management practices.

But there may also be conflicts over authority within communities. Agrawal

(1997) critiques “mythic community” definitions which invoke “small homogeneous groups using locally evolved norms to live with nature harmoniously, managing

resources sustainably and equitably” (Agrawal, 1997, vii). Because communities themselves harbor inequalities and competition that may lead to conflicts, such mythic conceptions are patently naïve and incorrect. A key implication of that point is that

CBNRM may or may not be effective and sustainable. Further, CBNRM may be neither legal before the State nor environmentally sustainable based on local ecosystem functions. Agrawal (1997) thus proposes that some traditional/indigenous practices may result in environmental harm. Hence it may be beneficial in some instances for informal rules to give way to State law. Therefore, in the face of environmental harm, it is possible that traditional forms of authority may face a crisis of legitimacy, and thus external pressure to instead recognize State-based management approaches (Weber

1997). However, this becomes particularly problematic if State law is still not viewed as legitimate despite the community’s own failure to effectively govern local resources.

Green Cultural Criminology

Green criminology is broadly concerned with the study of environmental harms, crime and regulation (White & Heckenberg, 2014). Recently, the intersection of green and cultural criminology has given rise to debates regarding the ways in which traditional environmental activities have been constructed as “illegal” (Mol, 2016).

Green cultural criminology has not matured enough to offer specific theories for explaining environmental harm. However, the marriage of the green and cultural perspectives in criminology offers a political economy framework for examining how the

State under capitalism manages indigenous rules and State environmental law based on the social construction of green crime. This is because political economy accounts offer critical perspectives on the conditions under which the State chooses to act to enforce its own environmental laws. Therefore, if enforcement undermines economic

growth or otherwise threatens the dynamics of capitalism, the expectation is that enforcement will be limited, whether via inconsequential fines or lack of State action.

The extension of green criminology to green cultural criminology in turn raises questions of how the State manages environmental crimes by different stakeholder groups. It lends itself to questions regarding how the failure or refusal to adhere to State law among groups may be constructed as non-compliance, thereby re-conceptualizing these groups as “offenders” (White in Donnermeyer, 2016). While green cultural criminology emphasizes the ways in which culture informs perceptions of illegality, its theoretical fluidity also allows for the inclusion of perspectives on whether the State’s enforcement of environmental regulatory laws among traditional and religious groups may be justified in the case of common pool resources. Ostrom’s (1990) design principles for successful common-pool resource institutions include monitoring, graduated sanctions and conflict-resolution mechanisms. While the relationship between green crime and common-pool resource governance may not be immediately apparent, for this research a pairing of both frameworks facilitates an assessment of whether or not indigenous and religious groups should be labeled as green offenders by

State legalist standards if their rules lead to environmental harms also defined in legal codes as crimes. Therefore, an assessment of the State’s regulatory apparatus for green offenses among traditional, indigenous and religious groups must also consider each group’s methods for monitoring and enforcement as well. Green cultural criminology therefore offers a context within which to apply CBNRM criteria for assessing the legitimacy of enforcing environmental laws in a legally pluralist society.

Research Questions

The overarching focus of this dissertation is to evaluate how different resource user groups in a protected area respond to State environmental laws under conditions of legal pluralism. I unpack the question of how local groups respond to State environmental laws in terms of an examination of three key issues: 1) their perceptions,

2) their (non-) compliance, and 3) how conflicts arising from non-compliance are managed between those groups and the State.

The first issue I address therefore concerns how local peoples perceive State environmental laws. Under conditions of legal pluralism, the coexistence of State laws and local practices requires interpretation by local groups as to their overlaps and discrepancies. The content of those interpretations may vary among groups with differing relationships with the State, and thus different bases for claims to lands within protected areas. It thus becomes crucial to understand whether and how local peoples perceive State environmental laws the same way. My first research question therefore focuses on the issue of how different local groups with distinct identities and thus relationships with the State in the BJCM perceive State environmental laws in light of traditional cultural practices. Here the differences among the key groups to be compared in this study become important: the Maroons have an official designation that recognizes their unique ethnic identity as a basis for distinct management practices, while the Rastafarians have only a self-declared basis grounded in a strong religious identity, and local agriculturalists lack a claim of distinction that would sanction distinct practices. The three groups thus have distinct relationships with the State, and differing degrees of official recognition to pursue cultural practices tied to natural resource management that may deviate from State environmental laws. As a consequence, the

interpretations of State laws by members in the three groups may vary substantially.

Green cultural criminology suggests that regulatory proscriptions are often a reflection of power dynamics (Lynch et al. 2011) and therefore offers a platform for examining whether groups within a protected area are subject to coercive State regulatory compliance that deviates from local practices. In particular, groups with clearer legal standing such as the Maroons may be more confident in asserting the legitimacy of their own practices and merely neglect acknowledgement of State laws, whereas groups with a less clear legal basis for their practices such as the Rastafarians may be more critical of State laws, and agriculturalists without a distinct identity or unique territorial claim may be more likely to recognize State laws, regardless of whether they agree with them.

The issue of how different groups view State environmental laws in light of their identities and standing before the State in turn motivates the subject of whether those groups in fact comply with State laws. Perceptions of State laws imposed from outside, or inappropriate to the local context, or unfair to a specific group, may well result in non- compliance. Of course, other factors may also influence non-compliance, such as population growth, other social changes that shift management decisions away from traditional practices, and so forth. But a key issue remains whether traditional practices of different groups with differing claims of distinct local cultures in fact result in non- compliance with State laws. That motivates my second research question, which concerns the degree of non-compliance with State environmental laws by local groups with distinct cultural identities and thus bases for resource management practices in a protected area. The CBNRM literature identifies several prerequisites for effective and sustainable resource management institutions. This opens the possibility that some

local groups will more sustainably manage their resources. In turn, there is an established suite of management practices that serve as useful criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of CBNRM, including monitoring, graduated sanctions and conflict- resolution mechanisms. These can in turn be evaluated in light of legal requirements for conservation in protected areas. This research will feature as a key factor a group’s cultural identity and its standing before the State to analyze of whether the group complies with State laws in managing natural resources. I therefore compare compliance among groups in light of management practices as they square with legal requirements for management of natural resources.

If there is non-compliance, issues of legitimacy and authority as well as conflict and conflict management arise. Further, given my focus on State environmental law, non-compliance by local peoples would imply a lack of effective or sustainable local management. This opens possibilities for better management via State intervention, especially if said intervention is not punitive but is instead collaborative. While there are numerous examples of why indigenous law should be maintained in a legally pluralist society (Techera, 2010), previous work has failed to offer explanations for the conditions most favorable for State law to be adopted in order to improve the sustainability of local practices if they differ. The third and final research question therefore focuses on how local peoples and the State manage the issue of non-compliance, specifically whether the relationship is merely one of punitive enforcement and thus conflict, or whether there is any cooperation to improve the sustainability of natural resource management.

Put another way, I investigate whether groups with different types of claims to their territories engage the State differently in cases of non-compliance with environmental

laws, using the basic distinction of conflict and cooperation to guide interpretation. Once again, the issue of legal standing before the State is a key factor that organizes my inquiry, as official recognition of local claims of autonomy may condition the possibility for collaboration for sustainability.

Research Site

The BJCM provides an ideal case study for this research based on its evidence of legal pluralism and its ecological and cultural significance. These mountains are one of the world’s 78 most biologically valuable protected areas based on its ecosystem, which comprises a disproportionately large number of the world’s species (McDonald et al. 2003). More than half of the flowering plants in the BJCM are native to Jamaica, with approximately one-third of those being native to the BJCM. Additionally, the BJCM is home to the many endemic species including the largest butterfly in the western hemisphere (the Giant Swallowtail Butterfly), eleven species of endemic frogs, rare birds and six species of endemic snakes.

Additionally, the BJCM are internationally renowned for coffee and tourism. As a tropical montane forest, the BJCM’s ecosystem makes it particularly amenable to agricultural cultivation and is also very appealing to tourists who are beguiled by the cool temperature, sprawling views and secluded waterfalls and rivers. The mountains provide recreational opportunities for bird watchers, scenic nature trails through the

BJCM National park, and community tourism adventures. The BJCM’s rivers also provide crucial water sources for the capital city of Kingston, providing over 40% of the metropolitan area’s water. The landmass encompasses twenty percent of the eastern highlands of Jamaica and comprises three parishes: Portland, St. Andrew and St.

Thomas.

Figure 1-2: Deforestation in The Blue & John Crow Mountains, Jamaica taken in July, 2017 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

Jamaica’s Regulatory Framework

Jamaica’s environmental regulatory bodies are executive agencies which function under the Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation (formerly the Ministry of Water, Land, Environment and Climate Change)1. These statutory bodies enforce regulations enacted under the legislative branch of government. Sanctions by these regulatory agencies are typically administrative fines. However, cases which reflect egregious breaches may attract prison sentences and are usually referred to the

Director of Public Prosecution’s (DPP) Office for review 2.

1 Many Jamaicans argue that this change in title reflects the Government of Jamaica’s true position regarding the environment - as a source of income and not as a conservation priority. Why we Need a Ministry of Environment, The Jamaica Gleaner, March 14, 2016. http://jamaica- gleaner.com/article/commentary/20160314/why-we-need-ministry-environment

2 According to the Constitution of Jamaica, the role of the DPP’s office is to initiate, take over or discontinue criminal prosecutions.

Table 1-1. Bodies with regulatory oversight of the BJCM. Regulatory/Oversight Body Mandate The National Environmental Protection Functions include environmental legislative, Agency regulatory and administrative policy development and implementation The Jamaica Forestry Department Responsible for the management and Conservation of Jamaica’s forests. Jamaica Conservation and Development NGO mandated to promote environmentally Trust sound and sustainable development practices in the Blue and John Crow Mountains.

Table 1-1 presents the regulatory bodies that currently have oversight of the

BJCM. Of these regulatory bodies, NEPA is the regulatory agency which is primarily mandated to enforce the National Resources Conservation Authority Act, 1991(NRCA).

This Act is the overriding environmental statute in Jamaica with broad powers to manage the country’s physical environment. These powers include the power to serve an enforcement notice on anyone engaging in environmentally harmful behavior.

Enforcement may take the form of fines or imprisonment3.

In 2015, the BJCM received a UNESCO World Heritage Site designation on the basis of its cultural heritage and ecological value. This designation means that the

BJCM is now also governed by the UNESCO operational guidelines for protected areas.

This specifies the institutional and regulatory requirements for keeping the designation.

The international recognition that the UNESCO designation has provided has contributed to income generation through increased tourism and coffee sales in the

3 For example, under Section 12(3) of the NRCA Act, discharging effluent or constructing anything to discharge effluent without a license may attract a penalty of J$50,000.00 ($US 385.00) and/or up to two years imprisonment.

BJCM4. The State is therefore motivated to maintain this designation through heightened enforcement action in the BJCM.

Yet despite these efforts, there is evidence of significant environmental harm in the BJCM. The BJCM is home to several groups of local peoples who have deep histories in the area and who exhibit very distinct ethnic identities, religious beliefs, and resource management practices. These mountains serve as a protected area for the

Maroons.5 It is also home to several Rastafarian communities and it harbors local coffee farmers. Whereas the Maroons are officially recognized as having their own rules and protocols that amount to the constitution of home rule, the Rastafarians have only asserted their autonomy, and the farmers make no such claims. Crucially, these local peoples have established their own rules and protocols that amount to the constitution of home rule. This local autonomy however is complicated by the fact that the BJCM is also a protected area under the jurisdiction of the Government of Jamaica. That circumstance thus raises issues of legal pluralism, sources of authority, determinations of environmental crime and harm, and practices of community-based natural resource management. The BJCM thus provides a very useful case for comparing different claims to territory and autonomy by local peoples within the ambit of a protected area ostensibly subject to State environmental laws.

Among the Maroons, Rastafarians and local farmers, indigenous and religious norms and modernization have impacted the use of the natural resources in the BJCM.

4 The “protection” of the environment for income generation appears to be a priority for the new Ministry of Economic Growth and Job Creation (see footnote 10).

5 Jamaican Maroons form an important part of the African diaspora as the escaped slaves who successfully fought the British militia during the 18th century and formed communities in Jamaica’s most mountainous interior terrain.

Among all groups, the use of the forests for farming is evident for the provision of food, a source of income and the maintenance of spiritual, religious or familial ties. However, there is evidence that traditional knowledge used to inform agronomic techniques (such as the use of bitter cassava with cornmeal for pest control) is giving way to the use of chemical pesticides. The use of synthetic pesticides causes adverse health effects on residents who use these rivers for drinking, bathing and washing. Once pesticides are absorbed into the soil, they are transported by rivers that drain into eastern Jamaica’s water supply system.

In addition, the increased commercialization of the Maroon and Rastafarian cultures has, in combination with the UNESCO designation, contributed to a steady increase of tourists to the ecologically sensitive region. With the exception of the

Maroons, much of the land occupied by Rastafarians and local farmers is being encroached upon and is located outside the reach of the National Solid Waste

Management Authority (NSWMA) and Jamaica’s National Water Commission (NWC).

Dump sites located off the trails in the BJCM suggest that improper solid waste management disposal is resulting in adverse health risks. The BJCM also exhibits widespread deforestation (figure 1-2). In the absence of running water, these groups have attempted to secure fresh water from the mountains. This has resulted in significant soil erosion and degradation (Chai, Tanner, and McLaren 2009).

The BJCM therefore provides an ideal setting for this study as it exhibits the challenges of environmental and resource management in a protected area. Further, the legal pluralism exhibited among local groups is likely to inform the type of green crime they engage in, the extent to which these practices are guided by their traditional,

indigenous or religious norms, and the governance mechanisms that guide their management of natural resources.

The Maroons

Jamaican Maroons form an important part of the African diaspora. They are descendants of escaped slaves who successfully fought the British militia during the

18th century, and joined the indigenous Tainos Indians to form self-sustaining communities in the BJCM. Maroons are classified under international law as “tribal peoples” (MacKay, 2002). The International Labor Convention Number 169 (ILO) defines tribal peoples as “peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community and whose status is regulated wholly or partially by their own customs or traditions or by special laws and regulations.” Therefore, Maroons enjoy similar rights as indigenous groups under International law. Multiple sources of international law explicitly recognize the rights of minority groups to engage in traditional, cultural or religious practices. For example, Article 27 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights specifies the right of such minorities to enjoy and use their own culture, religion and language. Under Recommendation 23 these rights extend to the use of territories and resources that are closely aligned with their culture.

Further, legal autonomy is granted to Maroons under the historical treaties which they signed with British slave owners during the 18th century. These treaties provide the

Maroons with political, cultural and territorial autonomy (MacKay, 2002). The most important treaty, Cudjoe’s Maroon Treaty of 1739, grants Maroons fifteen hundred acres of land. This legal authority was also recognized by the Jamaican government after the change in sovereignty which occurred when Jamaica became independent from the

British in August 1962. The system of law and order maintained by the Maroons extends to environmental governance, since they maintain ownership of their land.

Much of this land is however located within State protected land, and this dynamic raises issues regarding the appropriate jurisdiction for monitoring and enforcement in

Maroon communities.

The Rastafarians

The Rastafarians are a religious minority group in Jamaica, characterized by their religious affiliation to Haile Selassie, Ethiopia’s 225th and last Emperor. Therefore, they too are protected under Article 27 as a religious community. However, despite protection under international law, Rastafarians do not enjoy the protected land status and the legal autonomy of Maroons. Instead, Rastafarians have asserted this legal autonomy. This self-declared legal status is not however recognized by the Jamaican

State. But Rastafarian communities are predominantly located within remote sections of the mountains, which are highly inaccessible to law enforcement. This affords the

Rastafarians a measure of de facto autonomy. Rastafarian ideology emphasizes a deep distrust of the Jamaican government, since Rastafarian beliefs support the view that the

State’s sole purpose is to oppress members of the African diaspora. This perspective is often justified based on records of atrocities committed against Rastafarians by the

Jamaican police during the early 20th century (Office of the Public Defender, 2015).

This friction resulted in the choice by Rastafarians to develop self-subsistent villages in remote areas, including the BJCM. In these villages, there is a significant reliance on the land for housing, farming and growing marijuana for religious purposes without interference. Legal authority is thought to reside with the village ‘Priest’ and not local law enforcement. If Rastafarian legal norms do not extend to environmental protection, then

questions arise regarding conservation in these villages, particularly if State regulation is not viewed as legitimate.

The Agrarian Communities

There are several farming communities within the BJCM which maintain small coffee plantations. Residents of these communities make no claims to legal autonomy from the State, and thus fall squarely within the jurisdiction of Jamaican environmental law. Farming communities thus serve as a control case for a comparative examination of perceptions, compliance and conflict management vis-à-vis state environmental law.

Research among these three groups indicates various forms of environmental damage due to their present practices, which raises issues of non-compliance with state environmental laws. Local communities in all three groups engage in a type of bush fallowing in which fire is often used to clear the land. These communities have largely passed on farming techniques from generation to generation which may suggest cultural and traditional influences which supersede regulatory authority. Some user groups have also begun using pesticides in their agricultural plots, a change from past practice which poses threats to water sources. There is also evidence of poor solid waste management, including around the headwaters of watersheds.

Research Procedures and Methodology

In order to understand how local peoples with different claims to autonomous legal standing interpret and comply with state environmental laws and respond to conflicts with those laws in cases of non-compliance, I pursued a qualitative methodological approach. Under conditions of legal pluralism, understandings of law and bases for autonomous claims are likely to inform interpretations of state law as well as compliance and management of conflicts from non-compliance. Qualitative inquiry is

well-suited to documentation and analysis of such understandings and interpretations via discourses. Similarly, green cultural criminology emphasizes a qualitative engagement with narratives of stakeholder groups regarding their competing understandings of crime and harm (Brisman et al. 2014).

My sample was comprised of two main groups – local peoples in the three groups noted above (Maroons, Rastafarians and coffee farmers) of the BJCM, and regulatory officials representing the Jamaican State (including representatives of the

National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA) and BJCM Park rangers). I conducted interviews with key informants in one or more communities representing each of the three distinct user groups in the BJCM, shown in Table 1-2. While there are other communities that exist within the protected area and buffer zone, these specific communities were selected based on their larger populations (which would facilitate a larger sample). In addition, I interviewed key representatives of the governmental agencies indicated in Table 1-3.

Table 1-2. Field Sites for Interviews with Key Informants in BJCM User Groups

Communities Rationale Sample Size

Moore Town Maroons, Portland Protected community within the 15 key informants BJCM Buffer Zone.

Rastafarian Village, St. Andrew Rastafarian community within 12 key informants BCJM buffer zone.

Hagley Gap, St. Thomas Agrarian community within the 15 key informants BJCM Buffer Zone.

Penlyne Castle, St. Thomas Agrarian community within the 15 key informants BJCM Buffer Zone.

Table 1-3. Interviews with Representatives of Governmental Agencies and Park Rangers Regulatory Bodies Role Sample Size National Environmental Executive Director; Director of 5 Protection Agency (NEPA) Enforcement

Jamaica Conservation Executive Director (responsible for 1 Development Trust (JCDT) enforcement)

Jamaica Forestry Department Executive Director; Director of 3 Enforcement

Blue and John Crow Mountains Park Rangers 2 National Park

Local residents were selected using snowball sampling. The snowball sampling design is one which the researcher locates one or more key informants who then introduces the researcher to other informants who can provide diverse perspectives on the area under research (Bernard, 2002). Snowball sampling is particularly appropriate for research in which not all members of the population would be suitable for providing information or it may be difficult to reach or locate key informants or those with material information (Bernard, 2002). The BJCM fits this criterion as it would be very difficult to locate some key community residents (especially among the Maroons) and with respect

to the Park rangers, as they are only permitted to discuss enforcement matters with the authorization and through the referral of the Forestry Department or Jamaica

Conservation and Development Trust.

I first conducted document analyses of relevant policy and legislative documents to assess regulatory statistics of non-compliance which may be related to indigenous and religious practices. I also conducted archival research on historical treaties, letters and policy agreements between the Maroons, the British (during colonization) and the

Jamaican State. Thereafter, I proceeded to conduct semi-structured interviews with the

Maroons, Rastafarians, farmers of the BJCM, officers of the relevant regulatory bodies and Park rangers/other enforcement officers posted at the BJCM National park. Key themes I pursued with informants among the Maroons, Rastafarians and local farmers included 1) perceptions of state laws, 2) practices for resource management, 3) practices for waste management, 4) encounters and interactions with park rangers, and

5) disposition toward the state with regard to dealing with local environmental problems.

With State representatives, I raised key two themes in relation to the three groups in the

BJCM, including 1) perceptions of local resource management practices with regard to compliance with the law and 2) disposition to working with local communities to reduce environmental degradation.

In addition to semi-structured interviews, I engaged in participant observation. I resided with local community members over a 3-month period to observe their governance structure and their day to day environmental practices, e.g. solid waste management. I also accompanied Park Rangers into the field to observe how they

respond to offenses, as well as the response of local community members to enforcement officers and the offenses observed.

Data from these interviews and participant observation were analyzed in several stages. Following my participant observation, I wrote analytic memos which enabled me to critically reflect on data while still in the field. As recommended by Saldaña (2015), I reflected on and wrote about my participants’ routines, rituals and rules in relation to environmental governance, as well as emergent patterns and themes how these relate to theoretical expectations in the frameworks noted above. In light of the sensitive nature of the data, which included some admissions of violations of environmental law, the interviews were recorded anonymously and transcribed verbatim.

With regard to the interviews, following the transcription process, the data were coded in two stages. Coding may be defined as the process of categorizing units of data with a name which summarizes and defines each piece of information (Charmaz, 2014.)

During the initial coding stage the data was labeled and scrutinized to identify constructs, which embody the conceptual content of the information obtained from fieldwork (Saldaña, 2015). This was followed by a second more selective phase in which I used the most frequent codes derived from my initial analysis to sort and organize the data collected from the interviews to guide my qualitative analysis. This second phase revealed the prevalence of the key themes that my participants reported and provided the basis for a comparative analysis of the various ways in which these groups’ claims to territory and autonomy impact compliance with State environmental laws.

While generalizability may be a limitation of this research, critical theory is contextually-specific, and the findings of this research reflect this approach. Despite this limitation in terms of representativeness, the findings may be relevant to other developing country contexts with similar characteristics involving post-colonial societies, ethnic diversity and legal pluralism. The findings will be particularly valuable in the context of the Caribbean, where research on compliance with environmental regulations in legally pluralist areas is very limited.

Format and Organization of the Dissertation

This chapter introduced the Blue and John Crow Mountains (study site) and explained why it provides an interesting context for a study of legal pluralism and environmental sustainability. The chapter also introduced the case study, archival research and historical ethnography research design employed in the dissertation. The significance of using a case study approach may be argued on the basis that an interpretation of the findings may seem arbitrary. However, this research is not mean to serve as a “one size fits all” illustration of how legal pluralism impacts conservation efforts in developing countries. Nor is it meant to be a panacea for how to resolve environmental problems in similar contexts. Rather this research embraces the view that theories that guide green criminology and CBNRM may not be pragmatic in legally plural contexts, nor do they account for the political economy created by colonialism in the Global South. Accounts from these ethnically diverse and post-colonial contexts serve to reinforce the complexity of governing a shared global space comprised of diverse common spaces. This will require focusing on shared factors that are recognizable to all stakeholders who use and hope to continue to benefit from the land.

The second chapter “Legal Pluralism in the Blue Mountains: The Maroons in

Jamaica’s Environmental Legal Landscape” defines legal pluralism and explores several issues associated with sustainable resource management. These include: legal autonomy, sovereignty and generational values. Legal pluralism is a useful analytical concept for understanding natural resource management because it acknowledges the difficulty of incorporating state law and non-state legal orders in achieving environmental sustainability. Placed squarely within the context of green criminology, legal pluralism offers guidance on how behaviors that may be considered to be illegal or deviant under state law are viewed in the context of a particular cultural norm or religion as an important use of protected resources.

The third chapter is “The Roots of Environmental Law: Post-Colonialism,

Rastafarianism and Cultural Heritage. It explores the role of international institutions such as UNESCO in defining cultural heritage and examines how these definitions may create conflict with local groups regarding land use.

The fourth chapter is “Moving Mountains: The Political Economy of Rural Green

Crime in the Blue Mountains”. In this chapter, I investigate common environmental breaches among farmers, and the ways in which the political economy facilitates these violations.

Chapter 5 concludes the dissertation with an evaluation of the findings from each chapter and details the implications of these findings for green criminological research in Jamaica and the broader Caribbean. I offer recommendations to improve environmental regulatory outcomes in the BJCM and suggest collaborative steps for improving the relationship both with the state and among the user groups. The chapter

closes with specific implications for the residents of the legally pluralist Blue Mountains and the regulatory bodies governing this protected area.

This dissertation is written in a non-traditional style, Chapters 2 , 3 and 4 are written to be three stand-alone articles for journal submission. The literature review, setting and methods are similar in each chapter but have been modified to relate to the key tenets of each chapter. The chapters will serve as suitable manuscripts for a few specific journals.

Chapter 2 is well suited for The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law.

The readership of this journal includes legal anthropologists, sociologists, development scholars and policymakers. It is currently the only journal that is dedicated to the publication of international studies on legal pluralism. Since Chapter 2 is directly related the role of legal pluralism on regulatory compliance and offers suggestions to state officials in this regard, The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law is an appropriate outlet. Further, the journal is the official publication of the Commission on

Legal Pluralism, which through conferences and publications aims to further the knowledge and understanding of legal pluralism across state, customary, religious and folk law internationally.

The third chapter which focuses on religion in natural resource management is appropriate for The Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture. The journal engages the ethically appropriate relationships between nature, culture and religion and includes articles that reaches audiences attempting to integrate research from sociology, cultural geography, ecological anthropology and political science. Edited by the University of Florida’s Bron Taylor, the journal has been published quarterly since

2007 and invites interdisciplinary work which directly explores the role of religion in environmental degradation and protection (see for example Tarter, 2015). The findings in Chapter 3 on Rastafarian spiritual and religious engagement with natural resources are therefore relevant to the journal’s emphasis and focus.

Chapter 4 is suited for Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean

Studies based on its specific focus on scholarly work related to the Latin American and

Caribbean region. Since this manuscript will focus on Jamaica specifically, it is important that it is submitted to a venue that is open to the publication of work in this narrow geographic region. Further, since I will embark on my future Caribbean research from a Canadian residence, the Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean

Studies will market my work to a Canadian audience. This journal recently published a historical and multidisciplinary analysis on one of my focus groups, the Maroons (see

Fuller and Torres, 2018). Therefore, this article is likely to be a welcome contribution based on its emphasis on compliance challenges that rural farmers in Jamaica face.

CHAPTER 2 LEGAL PLURALISM IN THE BLUE MOUNTAINS

The Maroons in Jamaica’s Environmental Legal Landscape

The tension between formal State law and informal local rule in the governance of natural resources has been well documented in previous work on the key concept of legal pluralism (Shah 2005). The challenge of enforcing environmental regulatory law on land occupied by groups with their own indigenous laws is fraught with complications due to tensions stemming from differences between State regulations and local norms and customs. This is because under legal pluralism, both the State and local peoples have legitimate claims to governance of resource management decisions.

Research on legal pluralism tends to assume that the State as a national governing entity is insensitive to local particularities, whereas local and indigenous peoples have traditional ecological knowledge that ensures sustainable management, but this is not necessarily the case. The dilemmas of State regulation versus local rule on ecologically sensitive lands can be especially complicated if the indigenous group in question engages in practices that result in environmental degradation. This challenge motivates the research question - How do Maroons conceptualize the legitimacy of state laws regarding resource use? Further, are there possible strategies for resolving competing or conflicting environmental rules between the legally autonomous Maroons and the State?

This chapter explores legal pluralism in the Blue and John Crow Mountains

(BJCM) in Jamaica among the Maroons, an indigenous group with international protected status. I first examine their natural resource decisions with specific reference to how their indigenous practices, legal autonomy and internal environmental

governance together impact sustainability outcomes and regulatory compliance.

Drawing on legal pluralism as a guiding theoretical framework, I unravel the complexities of enforcing dominant State law lands occupied by an autonomous ethnic group such as the Maroons. I thus unpack the multifaceted nature of enforcing environmental rules in a State protected area that also carries the status of autonomous indigenous land.

In this chapter, I use the term “indigenous” to refer to the Maroons, who upon escaping slavery to the mountains, joined the Native Tainos Indian settlements. The expressions “indigenous law” and “customary law” are used interchangeably in this chapter to refer to the totality of local norms and customary rules and enforcement mechanisms recognized by the Maroons. State law refers to official statutes and regulations of national and local governmental agencies as implemented by law enforcement entities.1 In that context, legal pluralism exists under State law if members of a community also have a formal claim to exercise autonomy by making and enforcing their own laws (Moore in Starr and Collier, 1989).

Literature Review

Legal Pluralism

Legal pluralism provides an orienting analytical concept by which to understand cases where State law encounters non-state governance systems. The concept of legal pluralism generally describes situations where two or more legal orders co-exist to influence governance within a society. The central tenet of legal pluralism is that various

1 This dissertation does not attempt to formalize the definition of law in relation to its applicability to non- state legal systems, as law and society scholars have long moved away from debates about whether non- state normative systems can appropriately be considered to be ‘law’ (Twining 2010).

normative orders co-exist in most societies, and that state law is not the only regulatory system in those societies (Griffiths, 1986). As noted by Griffiths (1986), “not all law is state law nor administered by a single set of state legal institutions.”

The legal pluralism literature typically distinguishes among three forms of legal pluralism. First, legal pluralism may be used to refer to circumstances in which there is an official recognition of a body of norms as law, though it is not considered to be applicable in a particular jurisdiction – as in the case of international or foreign law. As noted by Twining (2010), the literature typically reports on cases of legal pluralism where there are overlapping state and non-state regulations. In the second instance, the

State incorporates traditional or indigenous norms into its own legal system as formal legal rules (Gover, 2008). In this case, local rule becomes state law. Third, legal pluralism can refer to official deference to a distinct legal system that produces and implements its own law (Gover 2008). This describes the case of the Maroons.

Scholars have argued that legal pluralism can appear to challenge elements of the principle of “rule of law”, which maintains that law should be comprehensive, coherent, transparent and predictable. Under the rule of law, the law should be applicable to all citizens in the same way (Gover 2008). However, legal pluralists argue that attempts to maintain a single unitary legal code may compromise rather than improve the legitimacy of the state. Legal pluralists instead assert that by acknowledging and respecting the legal orders of non-state groups, the state is legitimized for being fair by demonstrating restraint in the exercise of its authority

(Pimentel 2010).

As a normative concept, legal pluralism also appears to favor bottom-up rule making and adjudication by informal orders (Twining, 2010). Legal pluralists have consistently criticized the domination of non-state legal orders by state institutions as ineffective. Diamond (1974) for example has asserted that modern state law has

“cannibalized” customary rules and laws. From this perspective, the States is viewed as domineering and non-state actors are perceived as upholding valid but misunderstood legal rules. However, these perspectives have more recently been adjusted to account for the fact that indigenous and other non-state groups are often in a position of legitimate authority, particularly where customary legal traditions improve environmental governance (Pimentel, 2010).

The delicate issue of co-management of natural resources by both state and indigenous groups has also raised challenges within legal pluralism (Vaughan,

Thompson, and Ayers 2017, Diver 2016). Within the context of natural resource management, legal pluralism intersects with other concepts such as participatory governance, polycentricity, stakeholder governance and nested institutions, all of which reflect a combination of non-state or local legal rule and state oversight. Arguments that favor customary laws and local rule over state law in governing natural resources emphasize that indigenous laws tend to account for long-term conservation over generations in a community, in contrast to the short-term goals that typically motivate state regulation and enforcement.

While these concepts enrich legal pluralism, they often fail to account for the underlying challenges inherent in conflicting perspectives both within and between indigenous and state institutions. These challenges are often borne from optimistic

notions of state and community co-management initiatives. These notions underestimate or ignore the complexities of co-management. Such complexities may arise from the state due to its lack of capacity to follow through on agreements. In addition, complications may arise from cultural complexities, distrust, and polycentricity among community members (Ostrom, 2010). Finally, relationships among both states and communities can pose challenges during the design of the governance process.

The assumption of an easy partnership between states and communities ignores the inherent power inequalities involved as they influence how much power the state cedes to community members. Based on previous studies, control typically resides with the state, though the extent of power sharing varies among cases (Green and Lund 2015;

Akbulut and Soylu 2012).

The Role of Legitimacy in Legal Pluralism

Environmental governance relies on legitimized claims of authority based on the authority which sanctions them (Sikor and Lund, 2010). The concept of legitimacy is typically used to describe the ability of an institution or law to gain compliance, even in the absence of direct coercion (Gover, 2008). Communities will accept laws as legitimate if the regulating institution is considered to be “fair” in exercising its authority

(Gover, 2008). This notion of legitimacy refers to the fairness in procedure in the way laws are made as well as whether or not these laws are just (Gover, 2008). Legal pluralism therefore suggests that in a legally plural society, the legitimacy of the State’s legal system is based on how fairly it relates to other legal systems (Gover, 2008).

However, if non-state legal systems are ignored or repressed, this could compromise the perceived legitimacy of the state’s own laws and institutions. Legal pluralism may indeed face repression in societies with ongoing conflicts regarding

property rights, land ownership and by extension environmental regulatory governance.

Conflicts regarding environmental regulatory governance are about legitimacy because they involve differences among interests over the issue of institutional authority. Issues of legitimacy and compliance are inextricably linked to notions of power and authority.

Legal pluralism is not without conceptual limitations. It fails to provide a criterion for distinguishing non-state law from other normative rules (Kleinhans and Macdonald,

1997). Critics have also argued that the principal contribution of legal pluralism has been to discredit the concept of legal centralism (see for e.g., Tamanaha, 2000).

Another highly debated deficiency of legal pluralism is its inability to define what is and is not “law” within legal pluralism. However, this debate extends beyond legal pluralism, as there is as yet no agreed upon universal definition for law. Tamanaha (1993) argues that it is possible to study legal pluralism without a definition of law. For their part, advocates for legal pluralism argue that this lack of a consensus regarding the definition of law facilitates continued dialogue about notions of law, such as indigenous law, which extend beyond notions of formal, state rules (Merry, 2013).

Legal pluralism has also been criticized as to its status as theory. Legal pluralism has been described as a theoretical framework, but not a theory, due to the fact that it is largely descriptive. It does not however make clear theoretical predictions about the viability of local rule, or the ability of state law to regulate in the presence of local rule.

Further, legal pluralism has been criticized for not offering specific guidance as to the most effective way to pursue legal integration or reform in legally pluralist societies.

Despite numerous research studies on legal pluralism in developing countries, most studies are quite legalistic in their approach and often reflect a hegemonic western

perspective (Bohannan 1965). Therefore, they offer limited insight for understanding the unique challenges that are often experienced by post-colonial developing countries that are balancing more than one legal system.

Forsyth’s Typology of Legal Pluralism

In light of the criticisms surrounding the conceptualization of legal pluralism,

Miranda Forsyth (2009) presented a theoretical framework that encompasses seven types of relationships between state and non-state law. Forsyth’s classification sheds light on the fact that legal pluralism is more than just the coexistence of legal orders.

She discusses a typology of seven types of relationships that can exist between state and non-state legal systems in legally pluralist societies; these typologies depict various levels of interaction, competition, collaboration and interdependence.

In Forsyth’s first model, the state actively attempts to repress a non-state legal system by legislatively banning the latter from exercising any adjudicative powers. She admits that this extreme model is rare and has been illustrated in Botswana, for example, which criminalized the exercise of judicial practice within customary judicial systems (Forsyth 2009). Forsyth acknowledged that while on the surface this system may appear to have the benefit of a homogenous legal system, in reality non-state justice systems are likely to simply operate underground (Forsyth 2009 p. 206).

Under the second model, the state does not give formal recognition to the non- state legal system, but tacitly encourages self-reliance on the part of the non-state system. Therefore the state turns a ‘blind eye’ to the operation of non-state legal systems, neither repressing nor supporting them (Forsyth 2009 p. 207). She cites

Malawi, Ghana and Zambia as examples of this model. While Forsyth notes that this model offers the advantage of a ‘flexible and dynamic’ relationship between the state

and non-state systems, it also opens the door to forum shopping which may eventually lead to destabilization.

In Forsyth’s third model, there is no formal recognition from the state, but it actively encourages the non-state justice system. Under this model, the state acknowledges its limitations in securing compliance in some respects and the effectiveness of the non-state legal system in securing this compliance. Therefore, “the legal systems reinforce each other’s legitimacy, as they are perceived as working together rather than working in competition with each other” (Forsyth, 2009 p. 209). As in the case of Peace Committees in South Africa, Forsyth pointed to the opportunity for non-state systems to maintain their integrity without state interference. However, while the state acknowledges its limitations under this model, it does not support the non- state system in its enforcement efforts.

Under the fourth model, the state gives some formal acknowledgement to the jurisdiction of the non-state legal system. As in the case of Samoa, Forsyth notes that the state gives limited legislative recognition and financial support, but no exclusive jurisdiction or powers of coercion. There is some collaboration between the two systems, however the state does not lend its enforcement mechanisms to the non-state legal systems. The state also does not attempt to exercise much regulatory control over the non-state legal system (Forsyth 2009 p. 210). Though this model offers the advantage of a high degree of autonomy for non-state legal systems, it does not address serious legal issues that may arise from double jeopardy when a case is adjudicated by both a state and non-state justice system.

In Forsyth’s fifth model, the state formally recognizes the legitimacy of the non- state legal system exercising exclusive jurisdiction within a defined area. Under this model, the non-state system has the right to carry out enforcement actions since it is independent of the state. Though forum shopping would not be a problem under this model, Forsyth explains that as in the case of Muslims in Nigeria, adjudication under

Islamic law does not offer the opportunity for the State to intervene in cases of abuse of power, discrimination and bias (Forsyth 2009 p. 217).

In the sixth model of Forsyth’s typology, the state formally recognizes the judicial functions of the non-state legal system and provides enforcement support when decisions are made by a non-state justice system. Forsyth advanced that this system is most effective when the state wants the non-state legal system to operate within the values underlying that country’s constitutional framework but would also like the non- state justice system to remain as unchanged as possible to preserve its cultural relevance (Forsyth 2009 p. 218). Under this model, the courts are given jurisdiction over a limited range of offences and there are clear linkages for the transfer of cases between non-state and state legal systems. Among the major advantages that Forsyth cites are the balance of state support for the non-state justice system in terms of enforcement, and the operation of the non-state justice system within the values that underline the constitutional framework (Forsyth 2009 p. 221). Forsyth notes that admittedly, a lack of political will and the requirement for expenditure of state resources may discourage the implementation of this model. However, the benefits of increased compliance through state and non-state partnership may outweigh these disadvantages.

In the seventh and final model, the state completely incorporates the non-state legal system into its system. This model as adopted by Botswana, for example, does not reflect a hybrid system but one which non-state systems are subsumed by state legal systems. Although there are some benefits with this model, such as the elimination of conflicting legal systems, Forsyth also notes some inherent disadvantages. For example, indigenous leaders may feel dominated by the state system as many of the advantages of a non-state legal system, such as informality and flexibility would be significantly reduced. Further, non-state legal systems would eventually lose legitimacy to state legal systems. Forsyth (2009) does note however that this system is most likely to be successful in post-colonial societies in which non-state legal systems have already lost their traditional basis of legitimacy (Forsyth 2009 p. 225).

Forsyth is one of few theorists of legal pluralism to speak specifically about the challenges that post-colonial developing countries often face in adaptations to their legal systems, often failing to incorporate political, economic and social considerations in regulatory standards (Forsyth 2013). Therefore, the discussion of my research findings is guided by Forsyth’s typology, particularly in relation to the adaptation that may bring about the best environmental outcomes from the state’s legal engagement with the

Maroons.

Background and Setting

The BJCM is located in eastern Jamaica. The wide variation in altitude, geology and climate in these mountains has given rise to highly diverse flora and fauna. The mountains are recognized globally as a site for the conservation of biodiversity; 33% of

Jamaica’s endemic plants are located in these mountains, which are classified as a

Caribbean Biodiversity Hotspot. The BJCM National Park is Jamaica’s only National

Park. It was designated a National Park in 1993 and was also gazetted as a Forest

Reserve under the Forest Act of 1937.The BJCM is an IUCN Category II protected area and a UNESCO World Heritage site, so designated because of its ecological and cultural significance. It is managed by a non-governmental organization (NGO), the

Jamaica Cultural Development Trust (JCDT) under delegation from the Natural

Resources Conservation Act (NCRA) through the National Environmental Planning

Agency (NEPA). The BJCM is also managed by the Forestry Department and the

Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT).

The BJCM reflects a scenario common in many post-colonial states in the

Caribbean: transplanted laws have been adopted by national governments and superimposed on indigenous laws, creating a situation where state laws and local rules co-exist, a classic case of legal pluralism. The Caribbean region is pluralistic from a cultural and legal perspective, inherently so because of differences which characterized colonizers of the region as well as the slaves and indentured servants that were brought to the region (Becker, 2015). While the Caribbean’s cultural pluralism2 is typically celebrated, the legal pluralism evidenced by various forms of indigenous and Afro- centric laws has been approached cautiously by Caribbean scholars (Becker, 2015).

Jamaica is unique in that it is challenged by both the existence of its internationally acclaimed cultural pluralism (which drives tourism and foreign direct investment) and its more problematic legal pluralism. The fact that the communities which exhibit legal

2 This cultural pluralism is evident in the diversity of political systems, languages and cuisine across Caribbean countries.

autonomy, such as the Maroons, are often relied upon to sell Jamaica’s distinct culture to tourists also places the state in a precarious position when considering enforcement.

This ambiguity regarding the legitimacy of state law vs. that of indigenous law is rooted in the concept of majoritarianism, which replicates the conformity-producing practices of colonialism. As defined by Becker (2015), majoritarianism is defined as “the assumption that the will of the [elite] majority is absolute and is the final authority when defining the limits of individual rights and freedom” (Becker, 2015 p. 139). Of course, majoritarianism is less problematic in legally homogeneous societies such as those of the colonizing countries. As a former British colony, Jamaica’s law and legal system evolved directly from the British legal tradition, which largely reflected a homogenous culture at the time that Britain colonized the island (Becker, 2015). At the very least,

Britain did not reflect the diversity of races, religious and cultural backgrounds and ethnicities evident in Jamaica and the broader Caribbean today. With respect to environmental governance, legal pluralism scholars have noted the challenges that post-colonial states and small developing countries in particular have with respect to establishing legal autonomy (see for example Delville, 2000 and Fitzpatrick 2005).

Legal Pluralism in the Blue Mountains

The BJCM provides an interesting context for a study of legal pluralism and natural resource management because it is at once a state protected area as well as indigenous land. As a protected area of biological value, the BJCM is sensitive to human disturbances that could cause harmful ecological impacts. But as an area of cultural importance due to the historical presence of the Maroons, the BJCM is also an indigenous territory with local rules and customs. Consequently, there are two sets of rules with distinct sources of authority and potentially conflicting priorities. State

management for conservation reflects different priorities than Maroon governance for the maintenance of cultural identity.

An examination of the historical dynamics that drive these disparities is important. The early form of globalization created by the sugar cane traders and their oppressed slaves constituted exploitative labor relations among the English, Spanish and Maroon inhabitants. The establishment of plantation systems during the colonial period gave rise to an elite class which to this day continues to dominate the distribution of land rights, and by extension, conservation and regulatory efforts. This deviates from

Maroon culture, which is linked to African legal conceptions governing land ownership and political and regulatory arrangements. The BJCM thus encompasses Maroon practices a in a mosaic of overlapping legal arrangements with State regulatory institutions.

Maroon Legal Culture

The history of the Jamaican Maroons is extensively documented elsewhere (see for example Bilby 2005). European colonial expansion in the Caribbean resulted in the near extinction of the indigenous groups of these territories, including the Tainos Indians in Jamaica. Small groups of Tainos escaped to the mountains and resided there. They were later joined by escaped slaves during British colonization and formed Maroon communities. Genealogical examinations have confirmed that the matriarchal DNA of

Maroons reflect both African and indigenous Tainos Indian lineages (Madrilejo,

Lombard, and Torres, 2015). Together, the indigenous Tainos and escaped slaves formed enclaves and relied upon the indigenous peoples’ knowledge of the environment for survival. The combined cultures included the wide use of medicinal herbs, and indigenous agricultural methods and fishing techniques (Becker, 2015). In Photo 2-1

below, the Tainos Queen performs a ritual to the ancestors at the 10th annual Maroon conference, reflecting the bond that the Maroons and Tainos continue to have today.

The mountains, forests and rivers of the BJCM continue to be significant to the Maroons and integral to their livelihood and culture.

Figure 2-1. Tainos Queen at the 10th Annual Maroon Conference, Portland, Blue Mountains, Jamaica. Photo taken in 2018 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

From a legal perspective, the source of legal pluralism in post-independence

Jamaica is the Constitution, which is stated to be the supreme law, and Cudjoe’s Treaty of 1739, which granted the Maroons their freedom and legal rights. The legitimacy of the

Maroons’ law has been tacitly acknowledged by the Jamaican state, and the informal endorsement of Maroon law lends credence to the fact that customary and indigenous law does not rely on constitutional recognition for its validity (Forrest and Corrin 2013).

Maroon law went into force prior to the island’s independence in 1962 and coexisted with dominant state law upon independence with the acquiescence of state authorities.

From 1739 to present, Maroon disputes continue to be settled informally in their

communities. Colonial authorities then, and Jamaican state authorities now, interfere only in instances of murder. In the rural BJCM, indigenous law is often the only law that the Maroons view to be legitimate.

Figure 2-2. Letter dated July 5, 1962 from Tom Driberg (British Minister of Parliament) to Reginald Maudling (Secretary of State for the Colonies) seeking clarification on the rights of the Maroons prior to Jamaica’s Independence on August 6, 1962. Photo taken at the Charles Town Maroon Museum by Tameka Samuels-Jones in 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Yet the delicate relationship between the Maroons and the state obscures the complexities of the relationship between state law and indigenous law, particularly regarding environmental governance. Following the Maroon Treaty of 1739, the

Maroons were granted 1500 acres of land. The Maroons view this treaty as a sacred charter reflected in the use of their common land. The fact that this chartered was considered to be an enforceable legal document by the British lends further credence to their claim of legitimacy. In a 1962 letter from the British member of Parliament stationed in Jamaica, to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in England, there is a demonstrated urgency on the part of the English to determine whether or not the

Maroons would remain sovereign or be subsumed by the upcoming Jamaican

Constitution (Figure 2-2). Clearly, the terms of Cudjoe’s Treaty were maintained.

However that resolution has done little to mitigate current disputes with the state as to whether the Maroon land falls within the heavily regulated BJCM National Park. In 2015, the BJCM received the distinguished designation of a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Accordingly, Jamaica became bound by Article 5 of the UNESCO Convention

Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which requires that States with inscribed cultural and heritage sites were required: “To ensure that effective and active measures are taken for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory. Each State

Party to this Convention shall endeavor, in so far as possible, and as appropriate for each country”.

While the UN allows each country to determine those “measures” that should be taken, Jamaica must ensure compliance or risk the international embarrassment (and loss of funds3) from declassification that was faced by Oman’s Arabian Onyx Sanctuary in 20074 and Germany’s Dresden Elbe Valley in 20095. Accordingly, Jamaica made plans to reinforce its enforcement activity in the BJCM by:

• Increasing the level of presence of enforcement officers

• Using technology to better detect and monitor breaches of environmental legislation

3 https://jis.gov.jm/unesco-provides-10-million-grant-funding-projects/

4 https://news.un.org/en/story/2007/06/223932-oman-sanctuary-first-site-be-removed-unescos-world- heritage-list

5 https://whc.unesco.org/en/news/522/

• Increase the effective number of park enforcement officers

• Mark critical boundary points6

Centuries after the signing of the 1739 Maroon Treaty, the BJCM Management

Plan (2011-2016) also lists as one of its primary goals: “Clarification of Maroon communal land location in relation to the Blue and John Crow Mountains National Park.

The location is believed to be outside the Park Boundary but the exact location is uncertain.”

Strangely, during the course of my research the Maroons did not display any such ambiguity regarding the land that they claim to own (figure 2-3).

Figure 2-3. One of several signs reflecting Maroon land ownership, Portland, Blue Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2018 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

Jamaica has proudly acknowledged the international exposure and positive impact on tourism to the BJCM that the World Heritage site is likely to create (See

Appendix A). However, the thorny issue of how best to accomplish the requisite environmental governance on Maroon land remains. Although Jamaica has not formally

6 https://www.jcdt.org.jm/

acknowledged Maroon law, it has not exhibited a desire for state hegemony either

(Forsyth’s seventh model). Therefore, state officials responsible for environmental protection in the BJCM seem to have few alternatives. If the law on the books is not strictly enforced on Maroon land, there is a high probability of non-compliance based on the existence of customary law. The state must therefore consider the best governance model for protecting the site while acknowledging the legitimacy of the Maroons’ legal system.

Methods

Data Collection

In order to document the extent to which legal pluralism impacted environmental regulatory efforts in the BJCM, I pursued a qualitative approach to data collection. I opted for a qualitative approach for various reasons. First, a qualitative approach allowed me the freedom to explore the subjective perceptions and lived experiences of the various groups through a personal participant-researcher relationship. Second, the semi-structured nature of the data collection during interviews process afforded participants the opportunity to share their perspectives, values and customs in depth and holistically, while allowing me to gather rich information about key themes pertaining to legal pluralism. Third, the qualitative approach to observation provided the opportunity for me to immerse myself completely in the lives of the participants.

In order to triangulate the data, multiple methods of data collection were used in this research. These methods included 1) in-depth semi-structured interviews and 2) participant observation techniques which included handwritten field notes (figure 2-4).

The semi-structured interviews were the primary source of data collection. My field notes from participatory observation added contextual depth to the data and included

descriptions of interview settings, my perceptions of the respondents and any other information that I found relevant to the data collection (Padgett 1998).

I also maintained an audit trail throughout the study, which included four key components: 1) a research log, 2) a reflection journal, 3) analytical memos and 4) a codebook. The research log was a dated list that included every activity in which I took part throughout the study. I used a reflexivity journal to facilitate attentiveness to my own cultural, political and social perspectives, which could influence interpretation of the data. It allowed me to reflect on my personal biases, assumptions, values and ambiguities throughout the study. The analytical memos were notations I made to reflect on and make sense of the data. I initiated the codebook during the process of transcribing, reading and analyzing the data collected for the study. I also refined the codebook to assure consistency and reliability during the data coding process (Patton,

2015).

Figure 2-4. Maroon Meeting on August 1, 2018. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels- Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

Sampling

Participant selection for the interviews was accomplished through purposive sampling to identify and select individuals who were key members of the Maroon

Council and who were intimately engaged with natural resource governance in the research site. Purposive sampling involved recruiting and selecting a small sample of key informants who met the criteria associated with the knowledge funds required to address the research question of this study, instead of randomly selecting a large sample size. Purposive sampling of a relatively small number of knowledgeable key informants afforded an in-depth understanding of the participants’ understandings of legal norms pertaining to conflicts over environmental governance on Maroon lands in the BJCM.

Credibility Strategies

Prior to embarking on data collection, I submitted my research protocol to the

University of Florida’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The protocol specifically described how I intended to conduct the research and protect the rights of the participants. The IRB approved the research proposal. In order to address potential confidentiality concerns by research participants during the study, I informed participants of their rights as research participants and informed them about the strategies that I would use to protect their anonymity. I took the following steps to maximize confidentiality for the participants in the study: 1) I used pseudonyms and removed all identifying information associated with research participants, 2) I kept all hard copies of documents or data associated with the study in a locked drawer, and 3) I retained documents on the computer as password protected documents.

Participant Observation

During the three-week period that I spent among the Maroons, a significant amount of time (10 days) was spent building rapport with the Council members and the trust of the Maroons. Eventually, after my disclosure that I was very good friends with a recently deceased Colonel who I had met during previous research, I was more readily accepted. I was taken to sacred Maroon springs that are not open for use by the public

(figure 2-5). I was taught about the medicinal properties of some plant species on

Maroon land, and I was invited to participate in traditional Maroon ceremonies (Myal).

Despite their increased openness, the Minister of Agriculture of the Windward Maroons once gave me a warning in Maroon (Kromante) language - “nuh chamma chamma” which “means give some, keep some.” In other words, because I was not a Maroon I would never be privy to all information regarding Maroon environmental practices and enforcement. Nevertheless, a Maroon Elder called me ‘brave’ for asking probing questions about Maroon territory and whether out of humor or admiration, the Maroons responded to most of my research questions.

Figure 2-5. On the trail to a sacred Maroon site in August 2018. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

The Interviews

Prior to commencing my fieldwork, I gathered secondary data on the environmental regulatory laws that govern the BJCM and the historical treaties that guide the Maroons’ legal autonomy. This helped in shaping the design of the project methodology and the interview questions. Also helpful was that while engaging in pre- dissertation fieldwork in June and July 2017, I established contacts with key community members in the BJCM Maroon communities of Charles Town, Scotts Hall and the

Windward Maroons of the Upper Rio Grande Valley.

Primary data collection was conducted between May and August, 2018. I collected these data over a three-week period, during which I obtained accommodation in close proximity to the Charles Town Maroons in the BJCM buffer zone and in the

Upper Rio Grande Valley of the BJCM near the Windward and Moore Town Maroons.

The interviews with participants all occurred on Maroon land. I was able to traverse the difficult terrain with the assistance of a field assistant.

Prior to initiating each interview, I reviewed the informed consent document

(Appendix B) with each participant and addressed any questions that the participant had about the study. I asked for verbal consent to proceed with the interview questions. The interviews lasted an average of 45 minutes in duration, and when consent was granted, the interviews were audio-recorded. The questions sought to uncover information regarding the relationship between the state and Maroons regarding state environmental regulations, the applicability of the state regulations to Maroons in light of their legal autonomy, and the ways in which Maroon indigenous laws accounted for environmental protection.

The number of individual interview participants was based on two factors: the number of Maroons and Council Members that each Colonel gave me permission to interview, and the research literature which indicated that approximately 12 participants are needed to achieve saturation in a qualitative study (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson,

2006). Once I suspected that I had achieved saturation based on redundancy in the interview responses, I concluded the interviews. A total of 15 Maroons participated in the study as follows:

Table 2-1. Number of Maroon Respondents by Status Total Male Female Members Members of Maroon of Maroon Council Community

15 10 5 6 9

Figure 2-6. Photo with Colonel Kim, Charles Town Maroons, taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

After conducting the interviews, I transcribed the audio recordings verbatim, then

I analyzed the data by reducing the information to significant statements and quotations, coding the data, categorizing and segmenting the data, and ultimately identifying

themes that emerged from the data. I conducted an initial coding by identifying and labeling segments of text, identifying and categorizing coded segments of texts and constructs, and then using the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the data as a basis for writing a description that presented the perspectives that comprised the key findings of the study.

I began data analysis during the interviews by writing analytical memos to highlight themes as they arose. Themes from the interviews and from existing literature guided the identification of key themes from the interviews, from among both the themes about which I asked questions and from emergent themes. After initially coding the interviews, I revisited the codes used to label the data and revised the codes to ensure that they accurately captured the meanings conveyed by respondents. The codes from which I derived the key themes for analysis included: 1) conflict and change

2) generational values 3) legal tradition and 4) environmental sovereignty. These key themes are discussed below.

Findings

The Maroons have experienced much change over the past three centuries. As a community, they have faced significant legal and political erosion. In large part, the conflicts and changes experienced by Maroons in environmental governance are based on changing generational values. The Maroons earned their sovereignty and maintain their legal traditions based on their resistance to slavery and colonialism. However, this freedom was gained by collaborating with slave masters to return any new slaves that escaped plantations after the signing of the treaty. This embarrassing historical knowledge, while apparently inconsequential in past Maroon generations, is significant to younger Maroons who have begun to challenge the legitimacy of Maroon claims to

heroism and hence sovereignty. This erosion in traditional values directly impacts compliance with Maroon environmental laws. The interrelation of these themes on environmental governance in the BJCM is unpacked below.

Environmental Threats in the BJCM and Maroon Law

State Law: It is an offence to light, maintain or use fire except for domestic reasons in an area designated for this. (Section 12, National Park Regulations)

It is an offence to cut/destroy plants …in a national park. Section 7(4), 4 and 13(1), National Park Regulations, 1993).

Threats within the BJCM are likely to gain increased visibility based on the

UNESCO World Heritage site designation and the increased attention to this protected site. However, despite the heightened awareness of these threats, Maroons expressed that the use of their land for cultural and religious beliefs takes precedence. According to the Maroon Colonel, Kim of the Charles Town Maroons, under Maroon law, plants and their use are dictated by tradition and permission is granted through the Colonel and the Council. She explained:

We can’t just do as we please because we are accountable to our ancestors. If we don’t listen we feel it man. If we cut what they say not to cut or use medicine on somebody without their permission you know something is coming. I don’t want to say much but as you know I have taken over from the last Colonel that passed away. He was a good man but when some Maroons started to use the land as they pleased all kind of crosses [bad luck] followed him.

Evidently, Maroons are prohibited from removing plants without permission, the penalty of which may vary from exposure to natural elements for a pre-determined period to being required to replant several plants to replace the one that was uprooted.

The Maroons place tremendous value on pleasing their ancestral spirits and share the belief that any attempt to use or remove plants and herbs without express permission will result in physical and/or spiritual harm. While conducting my research, a Maroon, in demonstrating the medicinal benefits of a plant to me, uprooted a plant only to be reprimanded by the Secretary of the Scotts Hall Maroon Council for this violation.

What type of punishment do Maroons use on individuals who remove plants without permission?

Well it depends on how bad the crime is. The Colonel will decide after contacting the ancestors. The last time somebody did it though we strip[ped] him naked and tie him up on a pole around the back there with the mosquitoes for one night.

Did he repeat the offense?

No sah, but the problem we have is that as the community grow and new people marry in you have to constantly have to be repeating these lessons.

General deterrence measures typically discourage deviance based on the punishment of others (Stafford and Warr 1993). However, based on the information from the Charles Town Maroon Secretary, this form of deterrence may not be as efficient among Maroons today.

This lack of deterrence appears to be particularly troubling for compliant Maroons as they place immense value on the plants that grow on Maroon soil. So much so that while in the field with the Minister of Agriculture of the Moore Town Maroons, he advised that he could share only some medicinal uses of the plants with me, he could not share everything, as I was an outsider.

This reverence for the plants on Maroon land is however compromised by the harm caused by planting herbs for ancestral worship and medicinal purposes but which are invasive to the BJCM’s sensitive ecological makeup. Additionally, the Maroons often

light fires during sacred rituals (figure 2-7). While these fires are often lit in designated areas, these designated areas are on state protected land. In an interview with Dr.

Susan Otuokon, Executive Director of the JCDT, she expressed that:

A major threat in the BJCM right now is posed by alien and invasive species as flora and fauna are directly threatened by the introduction of alien species which compete for habitat. In addition, alien invasive plants also increase the risk of fire in and around the BJCM. There are also challenges presented in attempts to naturally regenerate deforested areas that are compromised by the presence of competing plants and fires. We understand the importance to Maroons but they are significantly influencing the distribution of invasive species by planting preferred plants for use as food and medicine and lighting fires. While they are lighting fires for ceremonies, the younger ones are lighting fires for sport.

Despite the regulators’ perspective on this, the state, having acknowledged the

Maroons’ sovereignty, does not have the jurisdiction to carry out enforcement. Even if the regulator had the will to engage the Maroons regarding these frequent forest fires, it would require that they encroach on Maroon land to do so.

Figures 2-7. Fire at a Maroon Myal Ceremony, Blue Mountains, Jamaica. Photo taken with Tameka Samuels-Jones in June 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

State Law: It is an offence to take, destroy/willingly injure, disturb any protected animal, nest/eggs of protected birds without the written permission of the Park Manager (Section 13(1d), National Park regulations, 1993).

Pig-hunting, which Maroons traditionally engage in, is viewed by state environmental regulators as a contribution to the management of the species. However, coneys, which are typically used by Maroons during religious ceremonies as food and as sacrifices to ancestral spirits, are protected7. Dr. Otuokon, Executive Director of the

JCDT, explained that:

Their hunting of the coney is cause for concern since it is Jamaica’s only native non-flying mammal. They know that it is a protected animal. The hunting of the coneys is intense and as a part of the hunting technique the coney holes are often destroyed.

7 The Jamaican Coney is on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species - https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/9001/22186569

When I inquired about the environmental implications of hunting the coneys, the

Minister of Agriculture of the of the Moore Town Maroons Maroons did not express any concern and I got the impression that he would not discuss this issue with me further.

State Law: It is an offence to fish in a national park without the written permission of the Park Manager and to use any poisonous substance, electrical charges or any other similar device for the catching and killing of fish (Section 19(1) and 19(5) National Park Regulations, 1993).

Ironically, the Maroons, who appear to display such apathy toward the protected coneys, are fiercely protective of their rivers and streams. The Maroons located in the

Upper Rio Grande Valley expressed grave concern to me regarding threats to their rivers.

One senior Maroon woman exclaimed:

I don’t know what is wrong with those boys you know [those who pollute the river]. One time you would never find anything like this. They treat the river bad man. Furthermore they know they’re supposed to get permission from the Colonel to down there and fish but they just wait until night falls and go down there.

The numerous rivers and streams of the BJCM form an important habitat for a variety of freshwater plants and animals. However, the harvesting of freshwater fish by poisoning and using toxic chemicals presents a serious challenge to the Maroons

(figure 2-8). As expressed by Dr. Otuokon and the Agricultural Minister of the Moore

Town Maroons, over the past few years there has been an increasing and persistent challenge of young Maroons (under the age of 25) harvesting fish and large shrimp

(“janga”) by poisoning the river. The seafood is then sold outside the Maroon community for a handsome income. This is particularly disconcerting since the janga can only be found in the rivers of the BJCM of Jamaica.

Figure 2-8. Sign imploring the Maroon community to stop poisoning the river8, Blue Mountains, Jamaica. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

In an interview with Park Ranger 1, he advised that to best of his knowledge, no

State legal action was ever taken against the Maroons for poisoning the river, as it was difficult to obtain evidence regarding the perpetrators, particularly since they were on

Maroon land.

Its not so easy you know. For enforcement action to be taken we would have to catch them ‘in the act’ of releasing the effluent into the river. That is not really likely to happen.

Similarly, in a conversation with the Minister of Agriculture of the Moore Town

Maroons, he shared this concern regarding river poisoning:

To the best of my knowledge, only one offender from the Maroon community was ever convicted by the Courts, sometime between 2013 – 2015. This is because when we complain about the poisoning, they [law enforcement] say there is no evidence to prosecute. As acceptable evidence of the offence they say that both the shellfish and the water need to be tested immediately after the poisoning occurs. This requires that we Maroons collect a sample of the water in a clean container (because of course we walk around with clean containers everyday), then the sample

8 The bottom of the sign reads - If you poison the river you poison yourself.

must be frozen and transported to Kingston [the capital] quickly, which is very expensive. After this patriotic exercise, we have to pay for the lab test out of our own pocket, which costs more than the trip to Kingston. The process is burdensome, but still they won’t accept photographs and eyewitness statements as evidence, only chemical evidence. – Minister of Agriculture, Upper Rio Grande Valley

Several Maroons shared the perspective that involving the state in this matter was futile but acknowledged that Maroon enforcement measures were not deterring offenders.

One Maroon man stated that:

We not doing great in the punishment area but we [the Maroons] still not as bad as other people (Jamaicans). We fought for this land so you know, most of us respect that. Working or not though, our laws are our laws and we will continue to make them.

Legal pluralism rejects the ideology of state centrism which asserts the supremacy of state law. Yet interestingly, the Minister noted that they had sought the assistance of state authorities in punishing the young offenders. This has not worked, and because of ‘the lack of evidence’, the cases were never added to Court dockets.

The fact that the Maroons were willing to utilize state law to advance the common good suggests that customary law may change or be altered as societies develop or as needed (Allott, 1980). In a similar vein, Woodman (2011) noted that customary law may change as a result of internal social changes of social attitudes within a community.

While I was not able to obtain specific data regarding the number of young

Maroons against whom Maroons had enacted their own enforcement actions, the

Minister of Agriculture disclosed that:

When we [Maroons] catch them we break them up (beat them) man. We do them bad. It seems is only beatings they respond to. But as we beat one another one appears. – Minister of Agriculture, Upper Rio Grande Valley.

This speaks volumes regarding the differences in values between older and younger Maroons regarding the value of environmental protection and adherence to indigenous laws. Of even greater interest is the fact that indigenous groups such as the

Maroons are willing to seek state assistance for enforcement, failing which they will resort to their own, albeit ineffective, enforcement methods.

Figure 2-9. Traditional Maroon Fish Sinking Pot. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels- Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Generational Values

The environmental threats noted above reflect intra-community conflict caused by divergent generational values between older and younger Maroons. Since Maroon laws are unwritten, Maroons relied on the collective conscience of the community to comply with the rules of conduct regarding the environment. This collective conscience is slowly eroding however and is reflected by the fact that generational conflict is a key source of intra-community environmental violations.

Maroon polity is reflected in the treaty and reinforced by Maroon political organization, religious ritual, marriage, kinship and the maroon peasant economy

(Besson, 2016). It must be noted however that the Maroons have experienced demographic changes and disruptions since they gained legal autonomy. Increasingly large numbers of Maroons have moved away from Maroons lands, and many choose spouses that are not themselves Maroons. Descent or lineage however remains the most predominant method of organizing the Maroon regime. This increased exposure has facilitated the advancement of contemporary views among some Maroons

(particularly youths) regarding the validity of their elders’ environmental laws.

Accordingly, less legitimacy has been attached to these laws by young Maroons, and Maroon enforcement measures have not had the traditional deterrent effect. Within the Maroon community, it was evident that environmental knowledge and authority rested with the elder Maroons, particularly those in the Maroon Council. Based on conversations with elder Maroons, in the past, dependence on local resources and strong community cohesion were sufficient to maintain compliance with the unwritten

Maroon laws and the rulings of the Maroon Council. However, this was no longer the case.

The Minister of Environment, Moore Town Maroons, expressed that the elder

Maroons felt that among younger Maroons there was less respect for nature. He believed that the lack of assimilation of young Maroons into Maroon culture and laws was as a result of the reduced transfer of indigenous knowledge to young Maroons. In my own conversation with an 18-year-old Maroon, he expressed the following:

They [the elders] only teach us what they want to teach us. When we ask them to teach us the language [Kromanti] and how to use the herbs for

healing they say we not ready yet. But at the same time, they want us to dance for tourists and they want to tell us what to do and what not to do. Where have you ever seen that? If we can’t make money from the healing, we have to make money another way. They are preserving the fish but not the language. It can’t work. We are the younger ones coming up. If they don’t teach us, it is going die with them. - Anonymous

Several young Maroons shared their agreement with this view, None of those present appeared to be engaged in formal employment. Without jobs or the willingness to engage in tourism, I inferred that young Maroons not only viewed river poisoning as easy income but also as a form of rebellion against their Elders.

Figure 2-10. Young unemployed Maroon. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones in August 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

The scholarly literature on protected areas and environmental protection acknowledge the importance of participation and co-management by local stakeholders for successful conservation efforts (Bruner et al. 2001). This requires creating or enhancing social capital and engaging with local cultural traditions, institutions and leaders (Green and Lund 2015). Further, multi-generational traditional knowledge on the protection of local ecosystems, long-term knowledge accumulation in communities, and

knowledge transfer from one generation to the next have been identified as crucial to community ability to practice community-based conservation and co-management of natural resources (Olsson, Folke, and Berkes 2004). In the case of the Maroons, conflicts over cultural reproduction pose risks to environmental quality in the form of violations of local rule. Additionally, the lack of economic opportunities and limited opportunities to participate in the local development process creates tension and out- migration from the rural Maroon settlements, further eroding their cultural cohesion. If left unaddressed, this erosion in social capital may impact Maroon claims for legal and environmental sovereignty. Without the transference of the cultural and indigenous practices which distinguish Maroons from other Jamaicans, future Maroons may very likely be subject to environment governance by state rule.

Legal Tradition and Environmental Sovereignty

On Maroon lands, law-making and practice are considered to be matters internal to the village and are open to only Maroons. Among the affirmed inherent powers of the

Maroons are the authority to design their constitutions, choose their council and determine laws for internal governance. The Colonel holds the only post which is elected, and ironically the voting process is conducted by using the state’s ballot apparatus. The Council is selected by the Colonel and is viewed as the repository of laws which are handed down orally. The Maroon legal system is largely democratic, and public participation is a key feature of the system. The law-making process is therefore open to the community at public meetings where resolutions are passed.

The main source of indigenous law among the Maroons is custom. The adjudication of law takes place in a common area, the Asafu Yard, which serves as a platform for reinforcing well-established community norms. The judicial process is open

to the whole community, and men, women and children participate. Notable among

Maroons, and in contrast to state law, is that indigenous laws do not attempt to anticipate every deviant or harmful act but rather emphasize processes for resolving conflicts on a case-by-case basis when they arise. In this way, these arrangements tend to better accommodate social and cultural change. This defies popular illusions that indigenous and tribal groups are static and internally uniform. In general, primary law- making authority is granted for matters involving the administration of government, the management of lands and assets, culture and language, membership and health. These include by-laws to promote law and order, prevent disorderly conduct, hunting and fishing, farming, and the regulation of housing.

Oral history transmits the legal precepts of Maroon society (Besson, 2016) and the charter for land rights and political organization. Maroons narrate that the commons are for the born and unborn, though in fact many Maroons reside outside these commons and even overseas. Maroons who use the common land for cultivation have common rights until death, which is transmitted to their descendants.

The Maroon peasant economy is rooted in their common land and is largely used for the cultivation of ground provisions such as yams and dasheen, hunting wild pigs, foraging for medicinal plants and herbs and some livestock. In keeping with their indigenous traditions, the Maroons continue to use a wide range of plant and animal species from the land and water for food, medicine, construction material, and cultural purposes (figure 2-11).

Figure 2-11. Blue Draws, Traditional Maroon Pastry made from cornmeal and cooked in Banana leaves. Taken in June 2018 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

Other sources of income include tourism, lumber felling and shop-keeping.

Maroons are characterized by a strong belief in the metaphysical realm of life, and they regulate their communities based on this spiritual belief as manifest in customary law. For Maroons, land represents a sacred and religious space and is of symbolic significance. The belief in the power of their ancestral spirits is also a guiding force in the development of customary law among the Maroons. The process through which these laws are received from their ancestors is through Myal ceremonies during which the ancestors are contacted and their wishes are revealed. While conducting my research I had the rare opportunity to observe the Maroons’ Myal ceremonies on several occasions (figures 2-12).

Figure 2-12. Maroon Myal ceremony. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

The accounts that respondents provided regarding the role of their religion on their interaction with their environmental resources was profound. The Minister of

Agriculture, Upper Rio Grande Valley shared that:

If rivers, plants and monuments are not cared for in keeping with the requirements of the ancestral spirits, then we open ourselves to the anger of the ancestors. So all the protection that Maroons had against state authorities, natural disasters, disease and famine would be removed as punishment.

The accounts that respondents provided regarding the role of their religion on their interaction with their environmental resources was profound. If rivers, plants and monuments were not cared for in accordance with the requirements of the ancestral spirits, then the ancestors would forfeit the protection that Maroons had against state authorities, natural disasters, disease and famine. Additionally, lack of obedience would impact the Maroons’ ability to provide healing to visitors from outside the Maroon community who pay a premium price for this healing. Social and legal coherence is therefore maintained through compliance with the laws governing the protection of the

Maroons’ physical landscape.

The right to exercise judicial power is recognized in Article 12 of the Peace

Treaty. A Maroon Council is led by an elected Colonel who oversees the community affairs and settles internal disputes. The Council is comprised of seven ministerial officers, each with their own committee including – Ministers of Security and the

Environment. The decisions of the Council are scrutinized by 11 elders. Based on knowledge derived from Myal ceremonies, Colonels make decisions about what trees to cut down, when to burn land to clear for planting, and which plants should not be disturbed. This process of rule-making may be more legal-ritual process than standardized but it also meets one of the main functions of law – monitoring, enforcement and deterrence.

The Maroons’ legal relationship with the State is born of a historically firm resistance to oppression yet as this research finds the Maroons often pretend to cooperate with the State’s regulations if they perceive that there will be a financial benefit. Therefore, to the extent their ‘presumed’ acquiescence with state environmental laws will result in for example, state funding for eco-tourism, Maroons do not openly contest (nor privately adhere to) government regulations. While the state is aware of

Maroon infractions, the lack of detailed knowledge regarding Maroon rituals and traditions, and their claims of sovereignty, have resulted in a lack of enforcement action against them. Instead, state officials defend their inaction by relying on confirmation from the Maroons that their practices do not violate state laws.

The Maroons further assert their claim as ‘protectors’ of their land in the BJCM by referring to their role in securing the UNESCO World Heritage site designation. Several

Maroons expressed that in previous years, Jamaica had submitted several nominations

for the designation but were unsuccessful. It was only when a UNESCO official visited the Maroon community that the ancestors gave consent to the designation. As one

Secretary of the Maroons expressed:

Without us they could never have won the nomination. When the lady came here, she was possessed by the ancestors and her eyes tun ova soh (turned over in her head). It’s because of us that they got it. So, they know they can’t tell us what to do. We got it for them, so their rules don’t apply to us. All of us can benefit [financially] from it though if they want. (Natalie)9

The belief in the supernatural powers of the ancestral spirits is not held by

Maroons alone. Though physically the Maroons look no different from other Jamaicans,

Park Rangers in the BJCM are hesitant about taking legal action against the Maroons both because of the fear of supernatural repercussions and because they do not speak the Maroon language10. As noted by a Park Ranger:

I don’t really mess with them you know. You know how much people they set obeah on? I never became a Ranger for that. I have my family to go home to. I hear about things, yes. The way I see it though we can’t do anything about it. We have plenty other challenges that can be addressed. We need more resources, we’re just now getting a camera to collect evidence. The GPS devices are outdated so we need some new ones. You understand? (Poiser)

As if to support this position, the Ranger Station closest to the Upper Rio Grande

Valley, which is the center of Maroon activity in the BJCM, always seemed to be vacant during my research (figure 2-13).

9 In order to protect the anonymity of the respondents I have identified them by pseudonyms instead of their real names.

10 Maroons speak two languages – Jamaicanese (patois) which is shared among all Jamaicans (including Maroons) and Kromanti which is a distinct language among Maroons derived from the Akan’s Twi language. Maroons often speak among themselves in Kromanti when in the company of ‘outsiders’.

Figure: 2-13: Open but derelict Park Ranger station in Millbank, Upper Rio Grande Valley. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Park Ranger 1 also admitted that to his knowledge, the state had never taken enforcement action against the Maroons for environmental violations. This was supported by enforcement data that I received from the National Environmental

Protection Agency which does not reflect any enforcement action against Maroons during the period 2012 -2017 (Appendix C). Clearly the history of both groups (the

Maroons and the State) is antagonistic and its legacy continues through environmental governance.

Discussion

This research study identified several positive aspects of Maroon culture that reflect conservation initiatives. There is therefore much common ground between

Maroon practices and the state’s environmental initiatives. The case of legal pluralism in the BJCM therefore demonstrates that while the Maroons and the State have separate sources of authority and separate processes for making and implementing environmental law, in many instances their objective is the same - the protection of the environment.

However, there are also some significant differences. Among the Maroons, environmental violations are addressed through contextual justice, a process which considers the justification behind a particular illegal act (Zips 1996). The state applies a strict legalist approach to environmental law in the BJCM, regardless of context. Within the context of the Maroons in the BJCM, environmental law is more fluid and contextual.

The Maroons do engage in environmentally harmful activity, but there is monitoring and enforcement for environmental infractions based on their laws. On the contrary, the state governs the BJCM through several statutes and regulatory bodies but engages in little monitoring and very little enforcement.

Viewed from this perspective, legal pluralism may not be the cause of environmental harm in the BJCM, but the key to environmental protection through state and Maroon partnership. In order for this to work, both parties must acknowledge that there is an interdependent relationship between state law and non-state legal systems.

Maroons are mostly protective of the environment (thereby fulfilling the goals of the state), and the state has the resources to offer evidence of infractions (e.g., sample collection, lab testing) and enforcement support to the Maroons, thereby addressing the limitations of Maroon laws.

The findings also bear implications in light of Forsyth’s models of legal pluralism, which were previously used to highlight the variability of state and non-state relationships under legal pluralism. Based on the research findings, the current relationship between the Maroons and the state regarding environmental governance is captured under Forsyth’s fourth and fifth models, with some characteristics of each. This is not surprising, since legal pluralism in the BJCM is unique based on its historical,

social and political context. Under the fourth model, the state gives limited formal recognition to the non-state system but no exclusive jurisdiction and does not attempt to exercise much regulatory power over the non-state justice system. This model accurately reflects the fact that the Jamaican government has recognized the Maroons and their legal autonomy, preferring not to exercise environmental regulatory functions over this community11. However, in keeping with Forsyth’s fifth model, the state does recognize the legitimacy of the non-state system in exercising jurisdiction over a defined area – in this case, this area is, of course, Maroon land in the BJCM.

Yet the previously discussed disadvantages associated with are also evident in the state’s relationship with the Maroons regarding environmental governance. A significant disadvantage of is that the state does not assist the non-state system with enforcement or resources (Forsyth 2009). Forsyth further described that another disadvantage of this model was that it could lead to abuse of human rights and natural justice in the name of tradition (Forsyth 2009 p. 214). Similarly, Maroon respondents expressed that their attempts to obtain state assistance in enforcing Maroon and state law regarding poisoning the rivers was futile. As a result, they resumed the Maroon enforcement tradition of physically assaulting (beating) offenders that were caught.

Under her 5TH model, Forsyth highlighted key disadvantages as the inability of the state to control abuses of power, bias and discrimination. Further, under this model,

‘the state might be able to justify the abandonment and neglect of non-state justice

11 During the period July 2018 - July 2019, I made seven requests to the National Environmental Planning Agency (NEPA) under the Access to Information Act for statistical information on enforcement action in the BJCM. NEPA eventually provided me with the information in August 2019. The information reflected a total of 26 enforcement actions between 2015-2018, none of which were taken against the Maroons (see Appendix C).

systems’ (Forsyth 2009 p. 217). These shortcomings were also noted throughout the research, though for peculiar reasons. The state’s law enforcement officials did not have legal jurisdiction on Maroon land, however their refusal (not inability) to pursue regulatory action seemed to be guided by fear of the supernatural rather than a lack of ability or systematic abandonment and neglect.

In light of these issues, I anticipate that Forsyth’s sixth model would be more likely to achieve mutually acceptable environmental regulations between the Maroons and the state. That model describes conditions of legal pluralism in which the state formally acknowledges the legitimacy of the Maroons’ non-state legal systems but also provides enforcement in support of Maroon law when required. This is particularly relevant since the state has already formally acknowledged Maroon heritage for the economic benefits of tourism. Choosing to formally recognize their legal authority as well, which is grounded in this very heritage, should not be burdensome. This formal acknowledgement could serve as a starting point in initiating formal discussions with

Maroon communities regarding parallels and differences in how both groups govern the environment.

From there, environmental rules may be established through Maroon-state partnership and participatory decision making. Though practical, this will not be easy.

For the most part, Maroons express distrust of state institutions since their historical claims to land and legal autonomy depend on this opposition. The state represented by the Park Rangers is also distrustful of the Maroons. Yet despite this, with mutual respect, both the Maroons and the state may benefit from legal pluralism. The first step in accomplishing this unison may lie in Maroon evaluation of their traditional beliefs,

which suggest that accepting state assistance (beyond borrowing ballot boxes) represents the subordination of their own laws to the state. On the part of Maroons, this would also require their admission that customary laws governing environmental use could be enhanced using state institutions. At present, this may be difficult for Maroons since their identity is defined by their sovereignty. The fact that the state failed to address Maroon environmental violations on the few occasions that Maroons did seek state assistance is also discouraging. Yet on their own, legal rules do not compel compliance. Legal changes would require that Maroons tap into the fluidity of their lawmaking process to form a partnership with the state. This is even more important as young Maroons begin to question the legitimacy of their Maroon leaders.

On the part of the state, while it presently acknowledges the sovereignty of the

Maroons, it will likely only gain the Maroons’ trust when the state formally and explicitly acknowledges Maroon laws as equal to their own. If the Maroons are simply ‘left in peace’ to make their own environmental decisions regardless of whether these laws work, then Maroons may feel forced to maintain the appearance of self-sufficiency.

Based on my observation, the key to making this work is not by imposing colonial style rules on the Maroons but by highlighting and rewarding their contribution to sound environmental governance in the BJCM thus far. It is more likely that by openly demonstrating respect for the Maroons, they might reciprocate by being open regarding their environmental challenges.

In June 2018, the Maroons held their 10th annual International Conference under the theme Maroons and Indigenous Peoples: Toward a Sustainable Future. The conference hosted local Maroon speakers as well as Maroons from Suriname. I also

heard and engaged with speakers from the local University of the West Indies and

Maroons in academia in Universities abroad. Notably missing from the 3-day conference were representatives from NEPA, Park Rangers, or other enforcement personnel. The absence of BJCM lawmakers and enforcement officers at the Maroon environmental conference is telling. At the very least, it reflects a missed opportunity for

Maroons and enforcement officials to acknowledge the value that could come from joint environmental governance.

A key finding from this study is that it is not the plurality of laws that give rise to environmental harm in the BJCM. Rather it is the divergent views of the value of the

‘others’ laws. Maroons value their laws as more important based on the blood and sweat of their ancestors’ pre-slavery struggle for sovereignty. This accounts for their strong perception of the legitimacy of their laws and not the state’s. Further emphasizing this point is the fact that many Maroons do not know, and are not inclined to know, state laws regarding environmental protection. At the other end of the legitimacy spectrum, the Jamaican state values its laws as the proud result of securing national independence from the British. From the state’s nationalist perspective, Maroon laws are based on the struggles of a long past era and therefore lack legitimacy. However, the state does not consider their infractions to be worth the administrative cost of enforcement or the potential loss of foreign investments from heritage protection grants and tourism. Since there is no rational way to measure the value of either legal order, both laws must coexist. Not just on the surface as it is now, but by compensating where each other’s laws fail to accomplish environmental protection.

Figure 2-14. My last day with the Park Rangers, Blue Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2018 for Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

CHAPTER 3 THE ROOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Post-Colonialism, Rastafarianism and Culture heritage

As a mechanism of power, law has been crucial to colonial and post-colonial relations1. Legal theories of state authority are concerned with the discourses and strategies of institutionalized power that informs elite perpetuation of their hegemonic position and their ability to impose their preferences via hierarchical relations within civil society. During colonial rule, such legal narratives rationalized the imposition of a

“civilized legal” order on so-called “primitive” or “under-developed” societies. More recently, the transference of legal doctrines and models from former colonizers such as the UK to developing countries such as Jamaica has taken the form of aid and development activities required by international agencies under the United Nations (UN) umbrella and multilateral banks through international treaties and agreements. These economic requirements are paralleled by new environmental management ideologies and conservation policy discourses asserted through the UN, NGOs and academic communities. These transnational legal orders invariably contextualize and frame environmental and development policy choices in developing countries.

The past few decades have therefore seen a remarkable increase in the promulgation of environmental law in Jamaica. The government, for better or worse, enacted wide ranging environmental legislation with the aim of placing its ratification of

1 Throughout this dissertation I have used Richardson’s (2000) definition of ‘Post-colonial states’ as those that arose in the decolonised countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and Oceania. This terminology does not suggest that the challenges being faced by the nation states have been resolved or that the remnants of colonisation have been removed.

several international environmental treaties on statutory footing2. Currently, seven Acts which are distributed among five agencies contain provisions which guide the protection of the Blue and John Crow Mountains (BJCM), all of which impose duties on the government to protect the environment through stringent regulatory measures.

However, this assortment of regulatory statutes, far from being effective, are often contradictory, fragmentary and out of touch with the realities of the communities that they aim to protect.

Crucial to the success of environmental law in countries such as Jamaica is a sound understanding of the factors that both promote and hinder adherence to environmental policy and regulations. This requires the recognition of the social groups and local cultures who shape resource use, as well as the legacies of colonial legal regimes which may impact regulatory compliance. This is particularly relevant in

Afrocentric communities within post-colonial societies, such as Rastafarian communities, which view the enforcement of environmental law as little more than an extension of colonialism cleverly disguised as ‘environmental protection.’ Curiously despite the on-going tension between the state and Rastafarians, Reggae which is an important part of Rastafarian culture, has recently been inscribed on the UNESCO intangible cultural heritage list. But this achievement was accomplished without the participation of Rastafarians, who would have liked to share with UNESCO the environmental challenges they face in maintaining other aspects of their cultural heritage. Environmental discourses surrounding Intangible Cultural Heritage should

2 Treaties that are relevant to the BJCM are the Convention on International trade in Endangered Species (1973), the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (1994).

therefore raise questions on the validity and basis for international designations without the input of the local groups that produce the celebrated culture.

This chapter explores the relevance of post-colonial theory in analyzing compliance with environmental law among Rastafarian communities in the BJCM. The post-colonial context is important for understanding compliance among Rastafarians, who make claims to legal autonomy that are not recognized by the Jamaican state. This conflictual circumstance makes colonial history and state-Rastafarian relations a crucial source of explanation for Rastafarian decisions about compliance with state environmental laws. Post-colonial theory thus provides a point of departure for a deeper analysis of how intranational agencies, through conservation policy’s new arm -- intangible heritage culture -- impacts the State’s ability to regulate Rastafarian land use.

Literature Review

Post-colonial Theory and Rastafarianism

Post-colonialism broadly refers to the transition from European colonial rule to political independence among previously colonized societies and suggests that at present, there is now greater equilibrium of political and economic power between the

West and developing countries (Morrison 2003). However, many scholars believe that post-colonial rhetoric obfuscates ongoing, and often veiled, oppression by the North of the poorer South (Diver 2016). Thus, post-colonial legal scholars in various disciplines share a concern for highlighting issues such as legal narratives that are often missing from the post-colonial debate. In the context of environmental law, this involves examining both how colonial-era resource management laws and policies continue to shape post-colonial governance and the synergistic effects of new internationally derived legal discourses. Post-colonial legal theory is relevant for examining factors that

impact environmental regulatory compliance, insofar as the exploitation of nature can only be overcome if hierarchical and discriminatory relations that impact resource use are first addressed (Thomas-Hope 2013). By failing to pay attention to the ways in which a society’s history and institutions produce social inequalities, environmental law may fail to recognize how its regulations can unequally impact different communities within a nation.

Jamaica’s transition to independence influenced the political and social culture of the island by emphasizing the extent to which Afro-Jamaicans viewed themselves as members of the national community. During this time, the Rastafarian religious movement developed among society’s lower class to mobilize against the post-colonial order, which reproduced structures of inequality developed under colonialism3. Based on its philosophical origins, Rastafarian theology cannot be isolated from colonial and post-colonial contradictions. Post-colonial literature emphasizes that while independence is often born from an enthusiastic sense of nationalism, ironically, the preoccupation of post-colonial states with ‘nation building’ has invariably entailed downplaying cultural diversity and emphasizing social unity (Starr and Collier 1989). In fact, many developing countries seem to regard indigenous, religious and customary law with even less sympathy than did their colonial antecedents (Andersson and Ostrom

2008). By extension, post-colonial environmental laws and policies which disregard these local legal rules have often perpetuated significant social and environmental injustices.

3 Jamaican Sociologist, Orlando Patterson (1964) described the Rastafarian movement as a “cult of outcasts.”

One explanation for this worrying trend in developing countries is that the source of conservation laws have been Western developed countries who were also former colonizers. Those countries have thus used their legal norms and concepts for advancing a post-colonial model of environmental governance (Caserta and Madsen

2016). Although local traditions and knowledge are often recognized by international environmental agencies, they are often subsumed by state law (Mayda 1984). In the

BJCM, Rastafarians fiercely reject Western perspectives on the causes of environmental degradation; therefore, they also reject the proposed solutions for environmental protection. To Rastafarians, the protection of natural resources through prohibitive ‘protected areas’ are an illegitimate post-colonial model for carrying out the colonial objectives of the developed world. In their view, Jamaica has bowed to the environmental whims of former colonizers due to on promises of funding and assistance. Rastafarians argue that this demonstrates an erosion of the sovereignty that the state claims to hold and justifies their own self-appointed legal and cultural autonomy.

Intangible Cultural Heritage and Environmental Law

Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) is a relatively new addition to conservation theory. Traditional conservation theory, which is the foundation of heritage law, defined

“heritage” based on physical manifestations of monuments and sites. To accommodate the introduction of intangible, living forms of heritage, the notion of “cultural heritage” has been reconceptualized in legal instruments. The development of intangible heritage theory has been largely driven by UNESCO. This work has culminated in the adoption of the Convention of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (2003) and the Convention on the

Protection of and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (2005).

ICH can effectively contribute to environmental protection efforts. Communities can contribute to conservation when they exercise a sustainable approach to the use of natural resources as a cultural norm. At the same time, ICH can support social cohesion and inclusion, factors which form important components of successful Community

Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM). Further, traditional practices can in turn inform state laws and regulations. Traditional practices concerning the medicinal use of herbs, water management and farming techniques can serve as the basis for to state efforts to ensure the protection of natural resources.

Legislation for ICH at is a relatively new phenomenon, both the international and local levels. However, certain groups and communities have long understood the value of ICH despite the past failure of colonizers and nation-states to legislate for its protection. It must be recognized that what now emerges as a ‘theoretical shift’ toward the development of intangible heritage law is a change in the Western concept of cultural heritage. Since ICH was already considered to be important aspects of culture among traditional and indigenous communities, ICH and legal protection for it are now being discussed to facilitate understanding by Western scholars (Ziegler 2007).

Like many areas of environmental law, intangible heritage law takes the form of a number of hard and soft laws – those that are binding and those that are not. Soft law instruments are significant in the role that they play in the development of fundamental legal precepts, which often develop to become a part of state law (Starr and Collier

1989). This requires an examination of the ways in which international laws concerning the environment are articulated in domestic legal instruments. The legal systems of many Caribbean countries, including Jamaica, is comprised not only of state-based

legal systems but also unofficial systems based on local societies and customary laws.

Therefore, a point of contention is that there is often a fundamental inconsistency between international and national legal frameworks on heritage conservation. The UN

Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage places strong emphasis on community participation. However, legislating for ICH at the local level is often conducted using a top-down approach which largely imposes Western legal norms on non-Western legal contexts. This is particularly problematic where aspects of religious law conflict with state legal systems.

In light of these challenges, the effectiveness of international environmental regulations can often be assessed through the interpretation of legal obligations in national laws and the adoption of appropriate CBNRM principles regarding environmental policy development.

Religious Belief and Community-Based Natural Resource Management

Developing and implementing an effective approach to mitigating environmental problems requires an understanding of how communities perceive environmental protection and how they respond to environmental laws (Akbulut and Soylu 2012). It has been well-established that communities of natural resource users can play important roles in natural resource management (Cinner and Aswani 2007). Relatedly, the conditions under which communities of users are able to successfully manage common-pool resources has been the topic of much research (Agrawal 2002).

Meanwhile, some conservation criminology scholars have argued that CBNRM principles cannot be applied using a one size fits all approach (Green and Lund 2015).

This is in part because much of the institutional literature on CBNRM has been criticized for supposedly de-emphasizing the cultural context within which particular governance

functions are implemented, or for taking an a-contextual blueprint approach to institutional implementation. There is a concern that particular governance functions might be made without regard for pre-existing traditions and institutions. Therefore, collective action theories have not adequately addressed how local institutions can survive in a world of states and global markets.

In light of these concerns, it is reasonable to conclude that how a particular regulation is implemented is just as important as whether or not it is implemented.

Unfortunately, the mechanisms by which regulations are implemented via governance processes have received much less scholarly attention than the examination of the content of such regulations. There are multiple ways in which important governance processes can be implemented, but one important distinction is between implementation through self-governance and implementation through some external imposition by the state or an international organization. The history of externally imposed governance has some unfortunate chapters, and many of these have been driven by a disregard for local forms of knowledge and belief systems that play important roles in natural resource management. Religious belief systems may come under particular scrutiny in this regard, given the tendency for outside organizations to disregard them as irrational anachronisms.

Nonetheless, religious law has a well-documented role in influencing attitudes, behavior, perceptions and actions in response to environmental problems.

Consequently, religious law is currently seen as an important domain of research and policy concerning environmental change (Gerten and Bergmann 2012). Evidence from empirical research suggests that religious beliefs and experience play a key role in

shaping environmental behaviors and perceptions to dominant state authority

(Hitzhusen and Tucker 2013). In Cox et al.’s (2014) review of 48 cases of CBNRM, he found that religion was crucial to a significant number of community governance functions such as informal sanctions, and that these are related to successful outcomes of community governance of natural resources (Cox, Villamayor-Tomas, and Hartberg

2014). Similarly, Coldron and Folk (2001) identified numerous religious movements around the world that have the effect of improving natural resource management. These religious norms include restrictions on eating, the type and life stage of plants that can be consumed, and how animals should be treated. Therefore, recognition of religion beliefs and practices as a key form of ICH could help overcome the fundamental problem of cooperation between states and local peoples for conservation. Yet the literature remains unclear on how to approach religious law, which advocates environmental protection on one hand but promotes environmentally harmful activities

(such as encroachment) on the other. In order to examine this conundrum, I provide a historical background discussion of Rastafari’s contested land use issues in the BJCM.

Background and Setting

The BJCM reflects a scenario common in many post-colonial states in the

Caribbean: transplanted laws have been adopted by national governments and superimposed on local customary laws, creating a situation where state laws and local rules co-exist, a classic case of legal pluralism. The Caribbean region is pluralistic from both a cultural and legal perspective, inherently so due to differences which characterized colonizers of the region with respect to their slaves and indentured

servants (Becker, 2015). While the Caribbean’s cultural pluralism4 is typically celebrated, the legal pluralism evidenced by various forms of indigenous and Afro- centric laws has received less attention (Becker, 2015). Jamaica is especially unique in that it is challenged by both the existence of its internationally acclaimed cultural pluralism (which drives tourism and foreign direct investment) and its more problematic legal pluralism, which unavoidably involves tensions between the Jamaican state and local peoples and consequently impacts regulatory enforcement. The fact that the communities which exhibit legal autonomy, such as the Rastafarians, are often relied upon to sell Jamaica’s distinct culture through tourism also places the state in a precarious position when considering enforcement actions against this group.

As if to emphasize this dilemma, Reggae music, which is internationally known to be an important form of expression among Rastafarians, was registered by UNESCO as an intangible cultural heritage in 20185. In many ways, this designation legitimizes the

Rastafarian movement. The protection of Rastafarian intangible heritage is inextricably tied to broader Rastafarian values and beliefs, including those regarding natural resource use and land ownership. Rastafarian precepts regarding land ownership are straightforward – as former slaves who toiled the land, the land in the BJCM (and any state-owned land for that matter) is rightfully theirs to use until they receive repatriation for the unjust use of their labor during slavery. Therefore, within the context of land

4 This cultural pluralism is evident in the diversity of political systems, languages and cuisine across Caribbean countries.

5 https://ich.unesco.org/en/RL/reggae-music-of-jamaica-01398

100

justice, Rastafarians believe that land constitutes a fundamental resource which forms the identity of a people and that they were dispossessed of their land by colonial forces.

ICH advances the conservation of natural resources and the protection of local culture. However, the UN designation is not accompanied by rules on whether environmentally harmful cultural practices such as encroachment should be protected alongside more palatable cultural forms such as reggae music. The state therefore maintains a great deal of discretion in how conservation and protection are operationalized.

Rastafarianism and Intangible Cultural Heritage Law and the Environment

Cultural values are fundamental to the identity of Rastafarians. These values shape the environmental and legal frameworks of the group. The concept of the village is also central to Rastafarian society. At the Rastafarian village level, religious law takes precedence over state law. Traditionally, Rastafarians do not subscribe to state laws but the direction of the village Chief. Most conflicts are resolved within the local village unit, but these conflicts are few. Only serious conflicts or those involving government-based institutions are settled within the state system. Despite the presence of a Chief,

Rastafarians do not believe in a hierarchical system of governance and there is no appointed “head” or “rule-maker.”

101

Figure 3-1. The closed gates of the Rastafari Theocratic Government (RTG). The RTG is a failed attempt to centralize Rastafarianism using a hierarchical monitoring governance structure. Respondents advised that this idea was advanced by elites who sought to control Rastafarianism and was doomed to failure since it is counterculture to Rastafari’s principles of equality. Photo courtesy of author.

When attempting to develop policy and legislation for the protection of the environment, the village unit and the interaction of law at the local level must be examined. This is particularly applicable when the ICH of a village is tied to their environment. Rastafarian law includes rules based on cultural beliefs about the interaction of Rastafarians with nature, which feature strong provisions against harming humans and non-human species and maintaining self-sufficiency.

Beyond local religious beliefs and legal systems, there are nationally derived and perpetuated ideas of culture. The clearest example among Rastafarians is the Afro nationalistic view that, as African descendants, they are by extension African citizens and therefore they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Jamaican government. The

Rastafarian ideas of culture also determine how culture is protected. Like their religious

102

beliefs, nationalized culture and social norms can be inconsistent with national heritage ideologies. For example, Rastafarians consistently encroach on state-owned land island wide, resulting in deforestation and illegal farming.

International law is frequently applied in legally pluralist societies and thought to be relevant globally, but this is not necessarily the case. Clearly national heritage laws that govern environmental protection should not only emulate international standards but should also seek to incorporate customary and religious law. This may seem rather obvious, but governments are expected to implement international laws through domestic legislation. The legislation should be consistent with international provisions, but without assuming that those provisions are strictly prescriptive such that local cultural contexts cannot be taken into account. So why do international ideologies regarding environmental protection commonly conflict with and then prevail over local ideologies? This is largely because international organizations such as UNESCO develop the concepts of environmental ideals for application around the world, without adequately considering local cultural diversity. A common framework is then imposed internationally, and the resulting policies and laws are transposed into domestic legislation without an analysis of their compatibility with local cultural worldviews. The consequence is that in a legally pluralist society such as the BJCM Jamaica, the state legal system may embody Western ideologies which are not in fact compatible with local religious laws such as Rastafarianism, as their law does not recognize western views of legal hierarchy.

Historically, UNESCO has been a driving force behind the development of heritage law. Accordingly, in a legal capacity, UNESCO has initiated, drafted, promoted

103

and administered international and regional laws for the protection of cultural heritage.

In addition to facilitating the development of heritage law, UNESCO has worked to ensure compliance, implementation and law enforcement by assisting member states to develop adequate national legislation and policy. Obligations of the state Parties to the

Intangible Heritage Convention are established under Part III of the Convention. Under article 13 of the Intangible Heritage Convention it states in part:

To ensure the safeguarding, development and promotion of the intangible cultural heritage present in its territory, each state party should endeavor to:

• Adopt a general policy aimed at promoting the function of the intangible cultural heritage in society, and at integrating the safeguarding of such heritage into planning programs;

• Ensure access to the intangible cultural heritage while respecting customary practices governing access to specific aspects of such heritage (UNESCO, 2013)6.

However, this is easier said than done when the protection of a community’s intangible culture translates to a lack of state intervention in the protection of land.

Rastafarians protest the long-term use of land by the state as a means of capitalizing on the productivity of the underclass at the expense of both land and people. As an extension of this philosophy, Rastafarians believe that land ownership and use should be determined by this underclass which has struggled to gain land use rights for subsistence, housing and commerce. This often translates to the building of Rastafarian communities on state owned and protected land. The complexity between the UN’s defense of intangible culture and the Rastafarian intangible culture of land use autonomy highlights some of the complexities of natural resource management in

6 https://ich.unesco.org/en/convention

104

developing post-colonial states. At the heart of the matter is that the discourse that has developed around the principles of natural resource conservation serves to marginalize any conception of the environment that does not fit into the western framework

(Geisinger 1999).

Methods

Data Collection

In order to document the extent to which Rastafarian heritage conservation impacts environmental regulatory efforts in the BJCM, I pursued a qualitative approach to data collection. I opted for a qualitative approach for various reasons. First, a qualitative approach allowed me the freedom to explore the subjective perceptions and lived experiences of the various groups through a personal participant-researcher relationship. Second, the semi-structured nature of the data collection process afforded participants the opportunity to share their perspectives, values and customs in depth and holistically. Third, the qualitative approach to observation provided the opportunity for me to immerse myself completely in the lives of the participants.

In order to triangulate information contained in the data, multiple methods of data collection were used in this research. These methods included 1) in-depth semi- structured interviews, and 2) participant observation techniques, which included photographs and handwritten field notes. The semi-structured interviews were the primary source of data collection. My field notes from participatory observation added contextual depth to the interview data and included descriptions of interview settings, my perceptions of the respondents, and any other information that I found relevant to the data collection (Padgett 1998).

105

I also maintained an audit trail throughout the study, which included four key components: a research log, a reflection journal, analytical memos and a codebook.

The research log was a dated list that included every activity that I took throughout the study. I used a reflexivity journal to facilitate attentiveness to my own cultural, political and social perspectives, which could influence interpretation of the data. It allowed me to stay in touch with my personal biases, assumptions, values and ambiguities throughout the study. The analytical memos were notations I made to reflect on and make sense of the data. I initiated the codebook during the process of transcribing, reading and analyzing the data collected for the study. I also refined the codebook to assure consistency and reliability during the data coding process (Patton, 2015).

Sampling

Participant selection for the interviews was accomplished through purposive sampling. I employed purposive sampling in order to identify and select individuals who were key members of the Rastafarian community and who were directly engaged in some way with resource management in the research site. Purposive sampling involved recruiting and selecting a small sample of key informants who met the criteria associated with the knowledge funds required to address the research question of this study, instead of randomly selecting a large sample size. Purposive sampling of a relatively small number of knowledgeable key informants afforded an in-depth understanding of the participants’ understandings of legal norms pertaining to conflicts over environmental governance on Rastafarian lands in the BJCM.

Credibility Strategies

Prior to embarking on data collection, I submitted my research protocol to the

University of Florida’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The protocol specifically

106

described how I intended to conduct the research and protect the rights of the participants. The IRB approved the research proposal. In order to address potential confidentiality concerns by research participants during the study, I informed participants of their rights as research participants and informed them about the strategies that I would use to protect their anonymity. I took the following steps to maximize confidentiality for the participants in the study: 1) I used pseudonyms and removed all identifying information associated with research participants, 2) I kept all hard copies of documents or data associated with the study in a locked drawer, and 3) I retained documents on a computer as password protected documents.

Participant Observation

During the three-week period in which I gathered information about Rastafarians,

I resided in close proximity to a Rastafarian Village in Red Light, Blue Mountains. I was initially introduced to the Rastafarian chief by my field assistant during pre-dissertation fieldwork in July 2017. Therefore, we were well acquainted when I returned to gather data in July 2018. I made eight trips to the Rastafarian Village, and on each occasion, I was asked to attire myself in Rastafarian clothing before entering the community. A female Rastafarian would be assigned to drape me with modest clothing and they also wrapped my head on each visit (figure 3-2).

107

Figure 3-2. Dressed in Rastafarian attire during fieldwork at the School of Vision Rastafarian Village, BJCM. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2017. Photo courtesy of author.

Prior to commencing my fieldwork, I gathered secondary data on the environmental regulatory laws that govern the BJCM and the history of the relationship between the Rastafarians and the state regarding resource management. Specifically, I learned from newspaper archives and reports from the Director of Public Prosecutions about two major incidents between law enforcement and Rastafarians that shaped the antagonistic relationship that exists today7. This information helped in preparing the design of the project methodology and the interview questions.

7 These incidents are described later in the chapter.

108

Primary data collection was conducted between July and August, 2018. I collected this data over a two-week period, during which I obtained accommodation in close proximity to a Rastafarian community in the BJCM buffer zone. The interviews with participants all occurred in this Rastafarian Community. I was able to make my way to the Rastafarian village with the assistance of a field assistant.

Prior to initiating each interview, I reviewed the informed consent document

(Appendix B) with each participant and addressed any questions that the participant had about the study. I asked for verbal consent to proceed with the interview questions. The interviews lasted an average of 90 minutes, and I did not receive consent from any participant to audio-record their interview. The questions sought to uncover information regarding three main themes: 1) the relationship between the state and Rastafarians regarding state environmental regulations, 2) Rastafarian views on the state’s jurisdiction over their community based on their view that the state lacked legitimacy, and 3) the willingness of Rastafarians to comply with state law regarding their practices that are considered by the state to be illegal.

The number of individual interview participants was based on two factors: the number of Rastafarians that my hostess (one of the Chief’s wives) introduced me to, and the research literature which indicated that approximately 12 participants are needed to achieve saturation in a qualitative study (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson, 2006).

Once I suspected that I had achieved saturation based on redundancy in the data, I concluded the interviews. A total of 12 Rastafarians participated in the study, as follows:

109

Table 3-1. Number of Rastafarian Respondents Total Male Female Members Rastafarians N of Rastafarian in Academia Community

12 10 2 8 4

After conducting the interviews, I transcribed the audio recordings verbatim. I then analyzed the data by reducing the information to significant statements and quotations, coding the data, categorizing and segmenting the data, and ultimately identifying themes that emerged from the data. I conducted an initial coding by identifying and labeling segments of text, categorizing coded segments of texts and identifying conceptual constructs, and then using the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the data as a basis for writing a description that presented the perspectives that comprised the key findings of the study.

I began data analysis during the interviews by writing analytical memos to highlight themes as they arose. Themes from existing literature initially guided the identification of key themes from the interviews. As I proceeded, I identified codes from among both the three themes about which I asked questions and from emergent themes underscored by informants. After initially coding the interviews, I revisited the codes used to label the data and revised the codes to ensure that they accurately captured the meanings conveyed by respondents.

Findings

The codes from which I derived the key themes in the BJCM’s Rastafarian community were: 1) state oppression, 2) moral rewards, and 3) environmental symbolism. I draw out an interpretation of Rastafarian narratives on these themes in

110

light of post-colonialist perspectives on ethnic and religious minority groups and green criminology perspectives on law enforcement and rule compliance.

State Oppression - The History of Rastafarian Oppression

The first key theme that arose from interviews and participant observations with

Rastafarians concerns state oppression. My respondents all emphasized that with respect to environmental regulation, historically, state law has consistently conflicted with Rastafarian customs. Ras I explained:

We will never observe the rules of a bald head man. Not going to happen. From day one they [the state] considered us to be enemy number 1. Why? Because we were the only ones telling the truth. Africa is the motherland of this earth and because we tell them to come from under Babylon, they oppose our every move. Its like they want us to eat their poisoned food and stretch out our hands for a bligh (for opportunities). They want us to prostitute our wives and pay them for land that don’t even belong to them.

But most law enforcement officers in Jamaica are Black so isn’t it their land too?

No sar. No sar. If you’re working on behalf of Babylon you don’t deserve a thing, not even the benefit of my attention. If they never sell out they would support our ideology and come into their greatness. Instead they are worrying about land that we are not leaving. We are not squatters. We are Kings and Queens and the land belongs to us.

Since Rastafarians rely heavily on natural resources and typically, they do not own these resources, state intervention has thus far been viewed by the Rastafarian community as the oppression of their core beliefs. Since, as iterated by my respondents, the state acts on behalf of the island’s former colonists, I plan to interpret the data through the framework of post-colonial studies.

In order to fully understand the basis on which Rastafarians claim to be persecuted under state oppression, I had to familiarize myself with incidents that occurred several decades ago between the two sides. To do this, I conducted a review

111

of secondary data located at the Rastafari Museum8. With the assistance of one of my respondents, Ras Black, I reviewed information regarding the history and growth of

Rastafarianism as well as human rights issues experienced by some members of the movement (Appendix E). Through an examination of the data, I noted that one key event that remains a source of tension regarding natural resource management was the destruction of the first Rastafarian village in Jamaica, located in Pinnacle, in the parish of St. Catherine. In the 1930’s when the Rastafarian movement was born, its early followers established a self-sufficient community which reflected their desire to reject

Western values and state interference. In their view, the Jamaican government was an agent of colonizers and therefore sought to keep the majority of Jamaicans entrenched in poverty and unemployment. Rastafarianism sought to redeem poor Jamaicans by offering the opportunity for growth and acceptance without the assistance or interference of the state. By 1939, the Pinnacle settlement occupied a large expense of mountainous land and soon became home to thousands of Jamaican Rastafarians (Zips and Zips 2006). Families worked communally to farm crops and burn wood for coal, all of which supported their successful self-sufficient lifestyle.

During that time, the Jamaican independence movement was gaining strength, and Pinnacle was viewed by the elites as a dangerous manifestation of anti-colonialism that threatened the island’s emerging political parties (Chevannes 1994). On the morning of May 22, 1954, over 100 colonial police officers converged on the community, arrested over a hundred people and burned buildings and crops to the ground

(Chevannes 1994). Authorities attempted to justify the violent eviction on the grounds

8 The Rastafari Museum is housed at the Montego Bay Cultural Center, Jamaica.

112

that Pinnacle was developed on state-owned land. Police thus effectively sought to destroy the first Rastafarian community. Ironically, in 2014 the Jamaican government sought to preserve what is remaining of Pinnacle (a ¼ acre of land) as a national heritage site which strangely suggests that the Rastafarian occupation of that land was legitimate (Appendix F). But the experience of the burning of Pinnacle is embedded in

Rastafarian memory, and helps explain the strong distrust of, and opposition to, any state effort to control their natural resource management (Lee 2003). In addition,

Pinnacle set a pattern for the subsequent and continuous exodus of Rastafarians from urban areas to rural sites of Rastafarian settlement such as the BJCM. Pinnacle came to symbolize the severance of ties with the colonial establishment and fortified the

Rastafarian desire for access to land and land ownership.

Another key issue concerns the status of the Rastafarians before the Jamaican state and international conservation entities. Rastafarians are protected under the 2007

United Nations Declaration on the rights of Indigenous people. Despite their antagonistic history, the Jamaican state now also has a requirement to meet international legal obligations to safeguard Rastafarian ICH. These obligations stem from Jamaica’s ratification of the ICH Convention in 2003. In 2018, UNESCO inscribed

Reggae, an important form of self-expression by Rastafarians on the International

Cultural Heritage of Humanity List. The convention requires that an institution be set up to safeguard and ensure respect for the inscribed ICH in the wider society. Yet the

UNESCO designation is not widely acknowledged by Rastafarians, with whom the

“musical heritage” originated. The key explanation is that this designation was applied for by the Jamaican state without Rastafarian input. This further degraded relations with

113

the state. Several Rastafarian respondents stated emphatically that the prestige and attention which has been granted to their music does not extend to their land rights.

One Rastafarian argued that

While the government is perfectly comfortable promoting Reggae, particularly with images of the aesthetically pleasing Bob Marley, they are far less comfortable in promoting other aspects of Rastafarian culture, such as the right to the communal use of land in the mountains.

Rastafarian respondents further expressed that the state does not have a genuine interest in protecting Rastafarian ICH. Instead, the listing is most likely to be appropriated by the state for touristic purposes. On numerous occasions during my fieldwork, Rastafarians expressed a strong desire to be included in determining the aspects of their “heritage” that are protected. Another Rastafarian, an elder, expressed:

Well in light of Pinnacle and even more recently the constant concerns we have about being relocated, it would seem to us that our general philosophy which is the root of the reggae music that they love so much, is what should be protected. That philosophy speaks specifically to the right that we have to this land. But of course, nobody asked. Reggae is a source of pride for them, but the core principles of Rastafari is a source of embarrassment.

Post-colonialism thus informs Rastafarian perspectives on the state with regard to land rights. As advocated by Vaughan, Thompson, and Ayers (2017) it is important that the people affected by cultural policies and laws are able to have a role in the control and creation of those policies and laws to ensure that these are developed in a culturally appropriate context. However, post-colonial perspectives also raise issues of whether western legal codes can be reconciled with customary laws of specific minority cultures, and whether national laws can be reconciled with international legal frameworks. Indeed, conflicting conceptions of law in international frameworks as compared to local customs place national governments in a difficult position of having to

114

reconcile the two. Hence while domestic legislation should reflect the cultural and legal values of a state, this legislation may be at odds with some provisions at the international level. In such instances, Article 27 of the Vienna Convention specifies that the obligations of international law must be met first. Naturally the adaptation of international legal obligations for domestic use are fraught with issues. There is unlikely to be universal interpretation and application in legally pluralist states and even when societies reflect a more homogenous legal makeup, social and economic variances are likely to result in differences in the application of these laws. Although Article 13 of the

ICH convention provides the flexibility for states to develop ICH legislation that is culturally appropriate, no guidance is offered for scenarios in which culturally appropriate ICH legislation would result in breaches of domestic environmental legislation, as in the case of Rastafarians encroaching in the BJCM.

Rastafarian Religious Customs and Land Use

On the ground, conflicting principles between legal frameworks results in tensions between law enforcement as representatives of the state and local peoples such as Rastafarians who strongly prefer their established customs. According to Ras

Rowen, one of my Rastafarian hosts in the BJCM, international bodies exploit Jamaica’s natural resources and after destroying it, they seek to nefariously ‘protect’ it by restricting the use of the land from those who were protecting it in the first place. In this vein, Rastafarians believe that Park rangers and other law enforcement officers that enforce the existing rules and regulations are shamefully acting as agents of the

“Babylonian” [imperial state] system. In an interview, the Priest of a Rastafarian settlement in the Red Light community of the BJCM, acknowledged to me that even

115

though he knew encroachment was illegal based on the law of the state, he could not respect the law of the land as it did not have jurisdiction over him.

Another key reason for tensions between the Jamaican state and Rastafarian custom concerns the details of Rastafarian religious beliefs as they inform land use and other forms of natural resource management. Rastafarians use a range of herbs, both legal and illegal, on the protected BJCM lands. Among the illegal crops is cannabis, which has religious significance to the Rastafarians. The long-term outlawing of the planting and use of cannabis, particularly in protected areas such as the BJCM, have only added to the conflict between the state and Rastafarians regarding land use. When used by Rastafarians for religious purposes, cannabis is now legal in Jamaica.

Nonetheless, cannabis has been described as harmful, psychoactive and addictive using scientific findings that Rastafarians consider to be “scientific racism.” Over the years, the state has carried out numerous raids on the marijuana plots of Rastafarians.

For Rastafarians, state environmental regulation is little more than an expression of western legal imperialism. On this account, Ras Black, a Rastafarian respondent, described the role of environmental state law as this:

The White man did his best to brainwash us into believing that everything African, African religion and African culture were inferior. Therefore, Rastafarians as teachers of the truth were demonized. They know that traditional herbs are a big part of our worship. Yet they make it look like we are committing a crime. Crime? They need to look in the mirror.

This view was echoed by a Rastafarian academic at the University of the West

Indies, who added that the ‘nature protection’ discourse in the North developed alongside legal and political discourse that Rastafarians strongly believe overlooks their own mistakes and failures of the past in causing the devastation of ‘Mother Earth’ resulting in natural disasters. Therefore, the North had often established incomplete

116

theories for explaining environmental problems, often portraying these problems as inevitable to progress. Scientists and environmentalists remained focused on what they agreed upon, which was capital growth, progress and advancement of the White population, key tenets of post-colonial theory (see for example Diver 2016; Morrison

2003). Underlying Rastafarian perspectives on Jamaican state environmental law is thus a contention that the main point of western law is the oppression of minority cultures rather than environmental conservation. The contradictions in western law with regard to conservation, and the longstanding lack of recognition of Rastafarian land claims and cultural practices, are thus forms of post-colonialism.

Similarly, First Man, a Rastafarian in the BJCM asserted that even though they were being side eyed by the government for living on “their own land,” the truth was that behind almost every conservation policy or law, there was an embedded opportunity for the advancement of Whites and the disempowerment of Black people.

They don’t really care about us you know. You believe those people [Whites] would ever put into law anything that don’t benefit them? If you ever think so just take a second look and I promise you that something is in it for them.

Therefore, in the Rastafarian view, environmental law only served to “protect” land through legal coercion and by increasing the authority of the state to suppress poor people who use the land. European capitalism unquestioningly remained the ideological and economic source of scientific practices in all the colonies and continues today. The

Rastafarian ethos is therefore in keeping with post-colonial theory which posits that the difficulties of post-colonial states in building effective systems of environmental governance reflect among other reasons, structural weaknesses and normative flaws in international environmental law and its sustainability discourse, the inequities of the

117

global economy and the various institutional and political factors endogenous to post- colonial societies (Kelley, Stunkel, and Wescott 1976). Hence Rastafarian perspectives on the Jamaican state apply not only to specific resource management practices like the use of plans for various purposes, but also to their land claims and land use.

There are yet other examples of Rastafarian practices involving natural resource management that create tensions with the state and result in feelings of state oppression. Rastafarians draw additional attention from state environmental authorities when engaging in their religious Nyabinghi rituals. These rituals involve keeping a single fire burning for seven days while Rastafarians engage in traditional drumming, chanting, praying and fasting (figure 3-3). Medicinal herbs are collected from the surrounding mountain slopes and consumed as purification teas or burnt for ritualistic cleansing. The

Park Rangers that I interviewed repeatedly expressed that conservation rules clearly state that no fires are allowed inside the park and under no circumstances should anyone pick any plants. According to Park Ranger 2:

They know that they musn’t do it. What they start doing now is they invite the tourists to Nyabinghi cause they know when they do that we can’t do nothing about it. If we shut them down and tell them to out [put out] the fire you’re going to hear that we’re up here harassing tourists.

118

Figure 3-3. Rastafarians at a Nyabinghi ceremony. These ceremonies involve drumming, dancing and chanting and reinforce social cohesion and group membership. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, August 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

This sentiment from the respondent suggested that one medium being utilized by the Rastafarians to handle state regulation is to use the state against itself. Fires are clearly not encouraged by the state however tourism is. Therefore, it is unlikely that the state will penalize Rastafarians if environmentally harmful religious practices are buttressed by the cultural marketability and foreign direct investment of tourism in the

BJCM. By intersecting both illegality and economic development, Rastafarians are using the problem of cultural measurement to their advantage - a dilemma frequently faced in post-colonial states when locally implementing cultural conservation policies that are based on the interpretation of Western institutions such as UNESCO, (Zarandona

2015). The principle of cultural measurement in a post-colonial context finds that heritage is difficult to define and therefore the value of a particular heritage often differs across international, state and local scales. Rastafarians do not believe that the state

119

and UNESCO have measured their culture against the same scale and value that they do since they have assigned more value to their music than to their philosophy on land use and ownership. Therefore in my observation, Rastafarians capitalize on this marginalization of their heritage by attracting tourists to their musically alluring

Nyabinghi rituals, which also happen to include the ritualistic prolonged burning of fires in the protected forests.

Challenges in Regulating Rastafarian Land Use

For its part, the Jamaican state presents its own complications to the enforcement of state environmental law in Rastafarian communities in the BJCM. It is generally accepted across Jamaica’s regulatory bodies that the Rastafarians in the

BJCM are encroaching on protected state land and are in breach of several other environmental regulations. However, the matter of which state agency is directly responsible for their removal and/or enforcement action against them is unclear. This is in part because the demarcation of the areas of the BJCM that are protected, and those that are not, is unclear. According to Park Ranger 1:

“We’re not really sure about the boundaries. Like some place you can use common sense and know where is protected but as to how far out it extends we don’t really know.”

This position was also shared by Dr. Otuokon, Executive Director of the JCDT.

Years of the division of land and privatization and leasing some of these lands have created boundaries that are at best confusing. In the face of this ambiguity, no regulatory body that formed a part of this research was willing to engage in enforcement actions against the Rastafarian communities.

120

The jurisdictional ambiguities at play are compounded by the lack of resources of regulatory agencies, including the NEPA, have for enforcement actions. This constraint means that spending must be done strategically and where it is most likely to be impactful, with the least controversy. The eviction or removal of Rastafarians from land that they consider their own (particular following the historical affair at Pinnacle) would in the eyes of regulators be inviting controversy, when funds could be used for projects that are more likely to be publicly approved of and appreciated. Here we find another face of post-colonialism: state tensions with a minority can combine with limitations in the state itself to hinder enforcement actions. Whereas the Rastafarians view state regulation as oppression and thus tantamount to post-colonialism, the state recognizes the political cost of seeking to enforce its regulations on the Rastafarians. Hence while the state does not recognize Rastafarian claims to land and its customary natural resource management practices, and while Rastafarians view the state as oppressive, that does not automatically mean the state actually acts to enforce environmental laws.

Moral Rewards

Morality refers to the right way of doing things based on what is considered righteous and correct in accordance with the customs of a group. As defined here, morality and its rewards derive from group membership and group sanction. Therefore, moral rewards emphasize the incentives created by social groups with established customs for exhibiting good morals. Within the natural resource management discourse, several scholars have found a correlation between the cohesive practice of group morals and sustainable resource management (Colding and Folke 2001). Compliance with environmental rules is therefore encouraged through the promise of social inclusion or the threat of social exclusion. Further, cohesive practice can depend as much on

121

identification with a group as it does with tensions with outside organizations and other groups. Morality as attached to group membership within the Rastafarian community relates to actions that not only help identify Rastafarians with each other, but also which speak to the groups’ stigma or approbation by outsiders, notably the Jamaican state. As a group, Rastafarians have staked their claim on local resources in the BJCM through several villages. They therefore control access to those resources based on joining the group and conforming to its rules. This provides a basis for mutual support in the face of outside interference.

A specific connection between morality and the environment among Rastafarians was observed by the specific rules of co-operation among individuals doing shared agricultural work and general tasks associated with maintaining the community. Notably, women held roles associated with hosting guests and tourists, cooking and childrearing.

As economic activities, women sold ground produce outside the village, made herbs from soaps from surrounding the village and made craft jewelry. Rastafarian men that I observed, made brooms and craft from wood cut from the nearby forest and engaged in most of the work associated with planting and reaping produce and herbs (figure 3-4).

122

Figure 3-4. Farming with a Rastafarian. To Rastafarians, farming their own produce is an essential part of maintaining self-sufficiency. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

This resource sharing and maintenance is successful only through compliance with established rules. This is in keeping with Ostrom’s (1990) examples of well- managed commons which were successful through shared agricultural work. Collective responsibility also places an incentive within the group to police other members (since everyone is likely to suffer from someone else’s mistake) and appears to further relieve the state of some of their responsibility. This reinforces the legal autonomy to which

Rastafarians believe they are entitled since they are expected to address environmental harms internally.

Rastafarian claims to legal autonomy also raise questions about the effectiveness of their internal policing. Moore (1989) describes the way in which law is enforced in small groups under conditions of legal pluralism. He notes that such groups

123

achieve rule compliance by threatening social exclusion or by offering the reward of greater inclusion in the group. Using the mechanism of social-inclusion enforcement does not preclude other forms of enforcement, though inclusion appears to be the primary method of control among Rastafarians as a socially ostracized group vis-à-vis other groups in Jamaica. During an interview with Ras Rowen, I inquired as to what would happen if a Rastafarian in the village that he resided in chose to ignore the rules regarding an organic natural lifestyle. He advised that the person would be considered to be:

“a demon or an agent of Babylon (the state) attempting to inform to the state on

Rastafarians actions.”

He added that the individual would be removed from the community but did not specify whether or not this would be by force. I surmised that to Rastafarians who may have felt socially ostracized prior to joining the community, group membership and belonging maintain the Rastafarian collective.

When religion is employed to deliver sanctions it is not unreasonable to assume that at least in some cases it is employed in monitoring as well (Cox, Villamayor-Tomas, and Hartberg 2014). Sanctions are a function that naturally accompanies monitoring and are frequently what gives monitoring its force. As noted above, for Rastafarians, this may take the form of social exclusion.

In addition to being socially ostracized, Rastafarians have typically felt as though they occupy the bottom rung of Jamaican society economically (Chevannes 1994). In order to address this Rastafarians through group membership have exhibit strong social capital which guides their rules of economic exchange. Based on my observations,

124

Rastafarians maintain social cohesion through systems of bartering and well-defined economic roles, such as the allocation of economic responsibilities for tasks such as craft-making, farming and tour guiding. This is consistent with the concept of moral economy which is concerned with how peasants are aroused to rebellion when the terms of the local subsistence ethic are breached by local elites, state authorities or market forces (Palomera and Vetta 2016). By subsistence ethic, moral economists refer to the idea that social arrangements regarding the local economy, such as the distribution of land, should respect the subsistence needs of the poor (Palomera and

Vetta 2016). In his seminal piece, The Making of the English Working Class, Thompson

(1962) advances the concept of the moral economy be referencing the English bread riots of the 1840’s which he believed were legitimized by peasants on the grounds that the price of bread was beyond the reach of the poor (Thompson 2016). The moral economy is transferable to post-colonial thought as a basis for interpreting Rastafarian understandings of morality, economy, and thus cultural survival. Rastafarians eschew the western capitalist concept of the economy on the grounds that it was developed for the sole benefit colonizers at the expense of the freedom of Africans.

With this in mind, it is illustrated how economic policies can motivate the creation of multiple legal orders (Tamanaha 2000). Embedded in the concept of legal pluralism are not just issues of legality but the economic costs of adhering to state law. The practice of Rastafarianism, which occurs in a communal setting, is an economic enterprise for Rastafarians (figure 3-5). By following the precepts of their law to maintain self-subservience, Rastafarians fulfill not only a religious belief system but also economic need. This complexity implies significant challenges in terms of environmental

125

governance. If state enforcement action is taken to remove Rastafarians from lands upon which they have encroached, the state is also effectively prohibiting establishment of further communal colonies. Under such a circumstance, Rastafarians must then confront the economic issues which arise from displacement and unemployment and from a moral economy perspective, justify further rebellion.

Figure 3-5. Rastafarian craft for sale. Rastafarians rely heavily on the economic role that each member plays through the moral economy. I addition to ensuring self- sufficiency, this also supports social cohesion and a lack of reliance on western notions of economic success. Photo courtesy of author.

Accordingly, post-colonial theory postulates that a proper evaluation of the prospects for competent environmental governance in postcolonial states must consider the character of the former colonial state and its environmental laws (Magraw 1990).

Magraw notes that the capacity of post-colonial states to implement and enforce environmental norms is still affected by the legacy of the colonial administrative apparatus. Colonial authorities were interested in the environment and as illustrated in

126

Jamaica above, they often passed regulations on rivers, mining and wildlife. However these were not implemented for conservation purposes, but to facilitate the orderly exploitation of natural resources (Lele 1991). Lele (1991) further advised that colonial states, by definition and practice, were designed to serve economic and political ends that were often at odds with the long-term interests of the colonized. Based on the literature, the legacy today is therefore a continuation of inappropriate centralized government decision-making and frequent reliance on cumbersome, authoritarian modes of regulation which tended to disenfranchise local communities closest to nature.

As a result, post-colonialists constantly remind scholars of the theory that the accession of post-colonialism was ‘prematurely celebratory’ as significant political and economic inequalities remain between the West and post-colonial societies (Rajan and Mohanram

1995).

Given the strategy of internal social inclusion for enforcement of group norms and the challenges they face from the Jamaican state and other outside groups,

Rastafarians signify their distinct culture in various ways. This signification serves as a means of asserting their group identity before the Jamaican state and other outsiders.

Such assertions amount to political statements. For one thing, Rastafarians embody their logic of resistance to the Jamaican state and its laws by refusing to wear modern or ‘western’ clothes. Ras II, one of my hosts, expressed that:

Rastafarians wear their hair in dreadlocks as a sign of perseverance and commitment. We only wash our locks in the mountain’s rivers and springs that Mother earth provides and we have to cover it to protect it from pollution when travelling to the concrete jungle [Kingston]. You see, the dreadlocks is our source of physical and spiritual strength and wisdom.

127

Rastafarians wear their hair in dreadlocks of varying lengths, not ever combing or cutting it. The dreadlocks are a sign of perseverance and commitment in the community. The Rastafarians I interviewed only washed their hair in the mountain’s rivers and springs and covered it to protect it from pollution when travelling to urban areas such as Kingston (figure 3-6).

Figure 3-6. River in the BJCM frequently used by Rastafarians for bathing and washing their hair. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, August 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

They believe that the dreadlocks provide them with physical and spiritual strength and wisdom. Rastafarians also relate dreadlocks to natural resource management, via the belief that dreadlocks enhance their senses and helps them to sense where medicinal herbs may be located. Based on the extremely remote locations of

Rastafarian compounds (which are only accessible on foot) users must bear the outward symbols of being Rastafarian or risk being easily identified as an outsider.

Therefore, the Informants stated that dreadlocks help them to easily identify undercover police or other informers that wish them harm.

128

Further, informants understand dreadlocks as not only signifying their cultural identity vis-à-vis outsiders, but also as a means of resisting efforts by the Jamaican state to impose its regulations and otherwise enforce its laws. This is particularly important since during the 1960s, it was common practice for police officers to shave a

Rastafarian’s dreadlocks if they were taken into custody (Appendix G).

Figure 3-7. Photo of one of my Rastafarian hosts in traditional Rastafarian attire. Rastafarians incorporate aspects of African heritage in all spheres of their lives including dress. In so doing, Rastafarians symbolize their faith to other members of society, and further reflect their rejection of western ideals. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, July 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Among Rastafarians the practice of wearing dreadlocks, which are formed by not combing the hair, is legitimized by the Biblical passages regarding the vows of the

Nazarenes and the Levitical orders in the Bible. During my interview with the Chief of the Rastafarian Village, he referred me specifically to the biblical scripture Judges 16 verse 14 which tells the account of a legendary Israelite who derived his prodigious

129

strength from his hair.9 When he was deceived by a female companion who cut his hair,

Samson lost his strength. Similarly, Rastafarians believe that the hair is a source of supernatural power, which provides not only physical strength, but gifts of the spirit such as discernment. Undoubtedly, through their hair, Rastafarians heighten the differences between themselves from the rest of society and in so doing, they convey their message of rebellion and protest against established Jamaican society and colonial ideals. In this way, Rastafarians use their hair as a compelling political language of resistance to their oppressors. As postulated by Chevannes (1994), Rastafarians view their African dress and dreadlocks as a powerful arena for the state, as extensions of colonialism, to be challenged without the need for verbal articulations (figure 3-7). Their hair and attire serve as a tangible visible symbol that they are not passive consumers of

European commodities – a perspective which also extends to Western based environmental laws. This consistent message of rebellion is particularly important since

Rastafarians believe that their primary responsibility is to honor the suffering of Black people under colonial rule and serve as a constant reminder that their suffering has not yet come to an end. Chevannes (1994) explained that even when colonial rule ended in

Jamaica, the avenues to social and economic mobility were barred to Blacks. This paved the way for the creation of the Rastafarian movement as a means by which to attain social rewards or reclaim a sense of status.

9 Rastafarians use the bible extensively in their religion. Their interpretation of the scripture does however differ from that of Judeo-Christians in some respects. For example, Rastafarian do not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, rather the believe that this honor is held by Haile Selassie I, and Ethiopian Emperor. Rastafarians also believe that the key Biblical figures that are typically represented pictorially as White were really dark-skinned Blacks.

130

In light of the fact that Rastafarians do not have officially recognized claims to land and legal autonomy, they must instead internally maintain various cultural practices that simultaneously serve multiple key functions: 1) support internal cohesion and thus the legitimacy of internal rule enforcement, 2) uphold resistance to the imposition of laws and regulations by the Jamaican state and other western institutions. While based on my observation, Rastafarians have and continue to maintain successful social cohesion and resistance to the state and western institutions, by their own admission

Rastafarians do not have a formal internal enforcement system. Therefore, they rely solely on social exclusion as a method of social control. While criminological theories dispute the notion of self-regulation as the only form of governance (environmental included), Rastafarians are quick to point out that the Jamaican state’s use of legislative force has not placed a dent in the fight against violent crime in the broader society (Du

Rées 2001). Ras Rowen pointed out that:

For all of them trouble [their efforts] down there [Kingston] the crime is still bad and things are getting worse. On the contrary, we live peacefully up here and everybody respects their brothers and sisters as one unified body. So maybe instead of persecuting us they may want to come up here and observe and learn how to be civil to each other.

Rastafarians on the other hand, are known for their relatively peaceful lifestyles, which lend further credence to their claims of the ills of colonialism type monitoring and enforcement methods.

Religious Belief and Environmental Sustainability

The foregoing sections highlighted the key themes of state oppression tied to conflicts over natural resource management among the Rastafarians, and how

Rastafarians have constructed a system of religious beliefs which manifest in a suite of

131

morally grounded practices to foster social cohesion and resistance to outsiders.

Conflicts between the Jamaican state and Rastafarians over natural resource management make plain the tensions in competing legal frameworks over questions of environmental conservation and sustainability. The dual purpose of Rastafarian religious belief and moral practice in terms of social cohesion and resistance may also promote sustainability but does not ensure that. It is therefore important to examine a third key theme stemming from my fieldwork, concerning Rastafarian beliefs as they relate to environmental sustainability in terms of natural resource management practices. This helps address the potential for a gap between belief and practice in

Rastafarian natural resource management and its sustainability. It also helps address the question of whether Rastafarian practices are grounded in an ethic consistent with sustainability, and thus valid in Rastafarian claims as an alternative to western and state conceptions of regulation for environmental conservation.

The majority of Rastafarians pursue a socially and economically committed lifestyle that is characterized by attributes of self-reliance, peaceful co-existence and natural organic living. Most Rastafarian beliefs and practices emerged from a matrix of diverse religious traditions, including African religions, Hinduism and the Judeo-

Christian tradition. From these multiple traditions can be traced the Rastafarian reverence for nature, manifest in their “ecological ethic” (Chevannes 1994).

Rastafarians believe that every realm of nature is endowed with personal life, and very tree or plant, river or stone, becomes a source of energy or power which may be used, abused, offended or destroyed (Barima 2017). This animalistic belief is stems from

African Indigenous Religion as well as the Hindu tradition to preserve the environment.

132

The influence of the Indian philosophy is largely traced from indentured servants that were brought to Jamaica who had a similar outlook on nature through herbal medicine as Afro-Jamaicans (Barima 2017). It is believed that the Rastafarian use of ganja has roots in the Indian tradition where it was used in meditation and as an herbal medicine.

More generally, Rastafarians engage in a suite of cultural practices that are also intended to signify their resistance to colonization by white imperialists. Rastafarians distinguish themselves in terms of their concept of morality and its rewards in terms of their refusal to purchase or consume many western vices. Rastafarian morality calls for them to abstain from what they consider to be “Babylonian traps” of white imperialists, such as purchasing or consuming alcohol, processed food or drinks, branded clothing, chemically produced medicines, food coloring, sugar and artificial flavoring. They are mostly strict vegans, and many eat only fresh or organically grown fruits and vegetables called ital (figure 3-8). Some even sacrifice metal pots and pans and cook vegetable roots over an open fire made with wood. Overeating is also avoided, as it shows a lack of self-discipline. Food is shared and fasting is considered to be an important method to strengthen the spirit as it accelerates detoxification of the body and improves the

Rastafarian’s intuition and divine abilities. This strict dietary lifestyle has developed alongside the Rastafarian collective’s views on land use – reverence for all living things, human and non-human. In this way, in addition to guiding their sources physical nourishment, Rastafarians’ food-related practices represent their historical, political and cultural identity.

133

Figure 3-8. A traditional Rastafarian breakfast of bananas, papaya and pineapple served in Bamboo. The Rastafarians reflect a deep respect for nature through their diet and simplistic lifestyle. However, the religious movement does not believe n population control, which places additional stress on the sensitive ecosystem of the BJCM. Taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, August 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Yet notably, this organic lifestyle does not ensure environmental sustainability. In fact, several farmers from the neighboring community of Hagley Gap expressed concern that the growing Rastafarian community of over several hundred residents was contributing to the pollution in the neighboring communities. One particularly aggrieved woman in the Hagley Park community said that:

They don’t have any running water up there you know. They don’t have proper sewage. Everybody just watching them and nobody not doing anything. Is a health hazard man.

The concern that some that some farmers expressed were not only regarding current waste disposal problems caused by the Rastafarians but also the future problems that will be caused by the rapid expansion of the population. During an interview with Ras Rowen regarding Rastafarian perspectives on population control, as expected, he denounced the use of contraceptives by women on the grounds that it was designed by the White man to eliminate the Black race. He explained that Rastafarian

134

women were ‘not allowed’ to use contraception. This spoke volumes regarding the potential environmental stressors that the consistent growth of Rastafarian communities in the BJCM may cause irrespective of their environmentally friendly economic and dietary customs.

Rastafarians and ‘the Commons’

There are various contenders to the landscape that Rastafarians have defined and demarcated as ‘sacred land’. I observed within close proximity to the land claimed by Rastafarians that secular families were doing subsistence urban farming on the same landscape. There were also people using machinery to obtain limestone for construction, evidence of deforestation in areas where people cut trees for wood, and other squatters. Though this did not appear to bother the Rastafarians I interviewed, a particular point of contention was that the neighboring Maroons have undeservingly secured legal autonomy and land, which they say further emphasizes the state’s adulation for those who assist colonizers. Rastafarians expressed a strong dislike for the Maroons based on their perceived disloyalty to their fellow Africans during slavery, as, through their agreement with the British, they returned runaway slaves as a condition of the Maroon Peace Treaty. According to one respondent:

You see the Maroons now, is a whole lot of people don’t know the truth about them you know. African to African, them deceive their fellow brothers and carry them right back to be killed. They blow they horn or whatever up there and have Nanny10 on dollar bill, all get land for them treachery. We now we support love, levity and yet Rasta can’t get a break.

10 Nanny of the Maroons is a Jamaican National hero who is said to have escaped slavery and led numerous other slaves to freedom during the 18th century. She is highly revered by Maroons and her image is pictured on the Jamaican five-hundred-dollar banknote.

135

My Rastafarian respondent therefore emphasized that as a reward for handing over their own people, Maroons received acres of protected land and recognition by the

State, yet Rastafarians, who he described as peaceful and mindful of all life, continued to struggle to obtain equality. This conflict has impacted the ability of the groups to establish participatory forces against broader issues of environmental harm within the

BJCM and buffer zone.

Discussion

There is a close link between environmental protection and cultural heritage which can be highlighted to indicate the importance of conservation initiatives based on a group’s religious practices. Further, religious activities are a logical medium for conveying conservation and natural resource objectives such as responsibility and caring for the environment. The literature also supports the fact there may be religious and cultural practices, particularly those regarding sacred sites which may promote biodiversity conservation. While it is not evident that the lifestyles of Rastafarians pose a significant challenge to the environmental sustainability of the BJCM at present, the encroachment of land and possible expansion of these communities poses a significant future threat. One of the challenges of environmental regulation is that it is typically imperfect since there is always incomplete knowledge about the precise of effect of current and future stressors on natural resources (Fuentes-George 2016). This uncertainty is further exacerbated when the “offending” group (in this case, the

Rastafarians) does not believe that they fall under state jurisdiction and that the land being “protected” is rightfully theirs. It may be deduced however, that the state’s lack of regulatory intervention may result in serious environmental harm if Rastafarians expand their communities beyond the maximum point of environmental stress.

136

Further, environmental management in the BJCM suffers from an eclectic and fragmented regulatory structure composed of remnant African and indigenous customary practices, various ordinances and administrative bodies inherited from

European colonial administrations, and more recent legislation drawing on Western models insufficiently tailored to local economic and social circumstances. This creates a problem of national authorities who attempt solutions that are appropriately dealt with at a local level. Although these issues are neither unique nor limited to post-colonial states, they are undoubtedly more commonly experienced in developing countries

(Diver 2016). Western countries have taken the lead in the development of environmental law, providing the models and experience that many developing countries have mimicked. That some traditionally managed resource systems have persisted sustainably in the absence of formal environmental regulations suggests that what may be more important than formal state laws, is simply that users feel the rules, however they may be decided, derive from legitimate authority and that they are applied fairly. While conducting my research, I interviewed several academic Rastafarians at the

University of the West Indies. Though they lived by the Rastafarian ideology, they also understood the environmental harm that could be caused from deforestation through encroachment in the BJCM. In my view, Rastafarian academics would therefore be successful interlocutors between Rastafarians and the government.

Rastafarians frequently manifested the belief that the Jamaican state is an oppressive institution, including with regard to environmental conservation. Further,

Rastafarians are likely to reject transnational dialogue regarding environmental management because the language of communication in these spaces is that of former

137

colonial cultures, i.e. language dominated by Western-based organizations. Therefore, state based environmental systems which support the ideologies of international conventions are viewed as illegitimate. Post-colonial perspectives thus underlie

Rastafarian perspectives on the state and environmental regulation.

Rastafarian conflicts with environmental regulators is based on the fact that their religious precepts have not translated to the state in terms of their land use, and is heightened by the fact that the government selectively determines what aspects of

Rastafarian ICH to protect. Rastafarian culture has come to permeate much of

Jamaica’s culture through art, food and dress. The green, red and gold colors which symbolize the Rastafarian faith are seen more prevalently island wide than are the

Jamaican national colors of black, green and gold. However, by the admission of my respondents, the most widely known aspect of Rastafarian culture is undoubtedly their

Reggae music. The music, in the Rastafarian context, is a powerful medium for their message of resistance. The lyrics in Reggae are codified and dramatic expositions of the Rastafarian belief system, rituals and worldviews and of the suffering endured by

Rastafarians. The music also serves as a powerful mechanism for social commentary.

Therefore, Rastafarians do not contest the value of Reggae music. What is contested however, is the fact that with the assistance of UNESCO, the state has aggrandized this aspect of Rastafarian culture, but failed to acknowledge other Rastafarian beliefs regarding the right for Rastafarians to clear and reside on ‘communally owned land’.

The contradiction here is that in order to benefit from the publicity that Rastafarian culture provides under international heritage law, Rastafarians must be permitted to break environmental laws in support of their views regarding land ownership. In their

138

view, their core beliefs cannot be separated from the music which voices these concerns and therefore their religion in its entirety, including their philosophy on environmental use, must also be protected as ICH.

Based on these findings, the decision to protect selective aspects of Rastafarian culture suggests a purposeful attempt by the state to unilaterally determine those

Rastafarian values that are important. At present, land use appears to be more significant to Rastafarians than the preservation of their music by Western interests.

While the UNESCO designation encourages cultural protection, if not pursued inclusively, it may marginalize local values and inadvertently mirror colonial efforts at

‘protection’. If Rastafarian environmental compliance becomes a priority for the

Jamaican government, it must ensure that it avoids this perception through synergistic governance processes that include the religious, cultural and traditional values of marginalized stakeholders. The unfortunate effects of doing otherwise are likely to be both environmental and cultural harm.

Figure 3-9. Photo with “Artsy,” July 2018. Artsy has crafted numerous pieces of art for sale over the past 50 years since becoming Rastafarian. During our informal conversations, Artsy expressed that he could sense that I was a strong advocate of environmental protection and therefore I should consider transitioning to Rastafarianism. Though honored by his suggestion, I promised Artsy that I would continue to advocate for environmental protection through my dedication to research. Photo courtesy of author.

139

CHAPTER 4 MOVING MOUNTAINS

The Political Economy of Rural Green Crime in the Blue Mountains

The continuing decline of environmental conditions in the Caribbean raises serious questions about the role and efficacy of environmental law as an instrument of environmental protection in postcolonial societies (Caserta and Madsen 2016). In

Jamaica specifically, the treatment of environmental law cannot be separated from developmental imperatives. The retreat of English colonizers in the 1960s ushered in a period of economic advancement. However, by the 1970s, disillusionment began to set in as deteriorating terms of trade and rising foreign-debt obligations caused severe financial problems for Jamaica’s fledgling economy. Many of these financial problems were accompanied by environmental stresses from increased manufacturing and production.

Despite having signed a plethora of environmental treaties and receiving support from international agencies, evidence of environmental degradation mounted. Massive deforestation and pollution across the island were causing a decline in biodiversity in

Jamaica (Hyslop and Nesbeth, n.d.). The fact that environmental conditions island wide have worsened despite Jamaica’s ratification of these transnational soft laws suggests that a critical analysis must be undertaken of the relevant regulatory institutions and policies. Effective legal and supporting administrative institutions are clearly necessary but not sufficient conditions for environmental protection. It is likely that the policy prescriptions of multi-lateral organizations, along with conditional foreign aid, are promoting patterns of natural resource use that do not reflect Jamaica’s needs as a small island developing state (SIDS) (Reed 2009).

140

The poor outcomes of environmental regulations supports the position of many green scholars who view environmental regulation and protection as products of a socially-constructed narrative of environmental crisis (Koning and Smaling 2005). Based on proponents of this argument, the crisis narrative is insincere as it manipulates facts to support the interests of the government to legitimate top-down exercises of power

(Keeley and Scoones 2000). Justifications for the imposition of regulatory laws often include perceived threats of long-term environmental degradation and soil erosion.

These narratives often fail to account for the social and ecological complexities that farmers faced in colonized locales (Koning and Smaling 2005). Yet this argument, while compelling, may be overly simplistic. While the basis for protectionism may be debated, there was, and continues to be, evidence of environmental harm in both developed and developing countries. For example, in the Blue and John Crow Mountains (BJCM), a protected world heritage site, deforestation occurs at a rate of 3% annually (JCDT

Management Plan, 2016).

Using the BJCM as a case study, this chapter examines how environmental regulatory non-compliance by local residents and particularly farmers is impacted by market conditions, regulatory frameworks and traditional norms and customs. The aim of this portion of the research is to elucidate the links between local attitudes and land use behaviors in the BJCM buffer zone and the ways in which these factors influence compliance with state environmental regulations among locals who rely upon agriculture as their economic base. The findings identify barriers to local community support for conservation initiatives and compliance with environmental regulatory laws. Those barriers extend beyond those often advanced based on analyses conducted in

141

developed countries that explain regulatory non-compliance in terms of a lack of environmental education (O’Toole 2014).

Literature Review

In criminology, numerous studies have been undertaken to identify factors that account for regulatory compliance (Morgan and Yeung 2007). There is little consensus as to the best approach for achieving compliance, with arguments for both Neiman’s coercive regulation (Neiman 1980) and Braithwaite’s more participatory responsive regulation (Braithwaite 2011). There is however agreement on the key point that regulatory law must be designed to be compatible with a state’s social and legal culture to be successful. In this respect, criminology has an important role to play in documenting the voices of local peoples and other stakeholders in creating meaningful regulatory outcomes (Gore, 2017)

This assertion can be extended to the question of environmental regulation. But when compared to conservation science, criminology has had a delayed response to the examination of environmental harms because of the diverging philosophical approaches concerning the victims of harm. Whereas conservation science has emphasized the harm that humans have caused to the environment, criminology focuses on the harm caused to humans (Gore, 2017). However, the two schools of thought are not necessarily incompatible. Conservation criminology offers an interdisciplinary paradigm for examining both natural and social factors that impact conservation efforts (Gore, 2017). It specifically speaks to how various stakeholders perceive and understand the relationship between humans and nature through the lens of conservation science. Conservation criminology incorporates elements of criminology and risk science to permit an evaluation of stakeholder compliance with environmental

142

regulations as it affects conservation outcomes, which include the consequences for the stakeholders.

There remains however a dearth of criminological studies that have examined compliance with environmental regulation. Interestingly, the few studies conducted to date have found that environmental enforcement rarely causes significant deterrent effects to environmental crime (Lynch, Stretesky, and Long, 2018). This has been largely attributed to market forces. As espoused by Foster, Clark and York (2010), market demand tends to increase resource use irrespective of the enforcement of environmental laws. Similarly, in their panel regression of 50 developing countries,

Shandra, et al. (2008), found that a country’s level of industrial exports and international debt significantly impacted increases in the rate of environmental pollution. Therefore, the impact of broader economic structures and development policies cannot be excluded from discussions regarding regulatory compliance in developing countries such as Jamaica.

The Political Economy and Green Crime

In that context, political economy is a useful approach for examining how environmental decisions are influenced by market forces, regulatory frameworks, and social norms (Basran and Hay 1988). Political economy emphasizes that those in dominant political and financial positions often establish standards that are in direct opposition to the interests of the majority of stakeholders, who directly manage natural resources on a small scale (Reed 2009). A political economy approach highlights how small-scale producers who depend on markets but lack political capital are usually excluded from the decision making process, and thus are often not supported by state development policies (Basran and Hay 1988).

143

In keeping with the tenets of political economy, rural environmental degradation is a social problem, influenced by structural conditions created by the economy and supported by the state (Vanclay 2004). In the agricultural sector, development policies seek to raise production by supporting large-scale operations, which in various ways squeezes small-scale producers. They may be forced on to more marginal lands by larger operations who can buy or otherwise acquire the best lands, and their profit margins decline as more efficient producers drive prices down. This offers an explanation for how environmental degradation caused by small rural farmers is a consequence of market pressures and intensifying agricultural production requirements inherent in a competitive market economy (Buttel and Swanson 1986). The consequence of a lack of state support for smallholders and other excluded stakeholders like indigenous groups is that they face difficult political economic circumstances for their productive activities, which bear negative environmental implications. The options available to farmers are often agricultural practices that respond to market conditions but are not always environmentally friendly (Parent 1996).

Through the lens of a political economy framework, the agricultural sector in the BJCM is understood as largely extractive in nature. Farmers engage in agricultural practices that present real threats to the environment because of market pressures and a lack of state support for small-scale production (Bellamy and Magdoff 1998).

A political economy framework thus offers an interpretation of regulatory compliance by examining the views of those marginalized from policy decisions that reflect the preferences of hegemonic economic actors. If political economy offers a critique of development policies that do not benefit smallholders and other excluded

144

groups, it also provides a basis for examining how those excluded groups see themselves and their natural resource management practices in the context of unhelpful development policies and regulatory frameworks. Farmers and indigenous peoples have unique relationships with the natural environment that may be fundamentally different to those envisioned in urban notions of the countryside (Hassanein and

Kloppenburg Jr 1995). Their relationships may also differ from those held by regulatory policymakers and enforcement officers.

Deterrence Challenges in Green Crimes

Green criminology, as a new, more radical branch of criminology, also offers insights as to why standard enforcement methods are not effective for the case of environmental crimes. As posited by Huisman and Van Erp et al. (2013), most environmental crimes are not reported to law enforcement. There are usually few, if any, direct witnesses or victims, and when there are witnesses, they are typically involved in the crime. As a result, environmental crimes can frequently only be detected through external monitoring and inspection by regulatory authorities (Huisman and Van Erp

2013). Unfortunately, the detection rates for environmental crimes are typically less than

1 percent (Akella and Cannon 2017). In the few instances where there is successful prosecution, sentencing is often mild as sentencing agencies reflect ambivalence or tolerance to offending (De Prez 2000). Accordingly, this results in a lack of deterrence and suggests to prospective offenders that environmental crime is not a serious offence

(Du Rées 2001).

Since rural environmental crimes and their enforcement differ from more familiar urban street crimes, alternate approaches for improving deterrence and addressing environmental regulatory non-compliance among rural farmers have been proposed.

145

One such alternative involves Situational Crime Prevention (SCP). Since the characteristics of environmental regulation and crime are largely based on a state’s political and regulatory system, Huisman and Van Erp (2013) emphasize that an effective solution to reducing environmental regulatory non-compliance requires looking beyond the level of the individual offender. Instead, there is a need to revisit the macro level regulatory context as it interacts with the meso-level social and cultural context of a community. Accordingly, they propose SCP as a possible regulatory alternative for addressing environmental crime since its success is largely based on prevention rather enforcement and context rather than individual offender-based strategies (Lynch,

Stretesky, and Long 2018).

SCP may be defined as approaches which embrace the use of social control alternatives to criminal justice approaches in deterring crime (Lynch, Stretesky, and

Long, 2018). Most applications of SCP in social control are found outside the remit of criminology. In those cases where it has been adopted within criminology, SCP is typically used for combatting street crime, not green crime (Huisman and Van Erp

2013). This may be on account of the fact that green crimes, particularly in developing countries, are among the most complex types of crime. They are deeply embedded in local communities with few alternative sources of income due in part to the political, economic and infrastructural context, all of which serve to impede enforcement

(Huisman and Van Erp 2013, pg. 3). But while SCP itself has not been widely used in cases of green crime, it has in turn given rise to yet other alternatives to enforcement specifically oriented to addressing green crime.

146

SCP approaches are gradually gaining recognition in the modified form of

Environmental Social Control (ESC) methods as advanced in conservation criminology research (Lynch, Stretesky, and Long 2018). In keeping with the broader principles of

SCP, ESC methods do not employ traditional strategies for deterring crime and therefore do not operate through the traditional criminal justice system. Techniques of

ESC may include social and economic policies and developmental programs that discourage environmental damage and ecological disorganization1 (Lynch, Stretesky, and Long 2018). Citing empirical studies of environmental enforcement for civil, administrative and criminal penalties, Lynch et al. (2018) noted that no substantial effects were found, thereby strengthening arguments for non-punitive, non-criminal justice-oriented ESC approaches. Such approaches may be particularly innovative in a legally plural context such as the BJCM, with unique social, historical and cultural dynamics which may not be well supported using punitive measures.

This is not to say that SCP-ESC approaches are without their challenges. Crucial to considerations of employing SCP-ESC is the need to address the definitions of crime within the context of environmental harm. This is particularly important since many environmentally harmful activities, such as breaches of regulatory law, do not amount to criminal activities and therefore do not fall under the traditional definition of a crime.

This is hardly surprising since the state, which is the very source of the environmental regulatory process, often depends on environmentally harmful economic behavior to meet its developmental goals (M’Gonigle 2008). Green legal theory highlights this inherent contradiction by moving beyond environmental law’s limited focus on the

1 Lynch defines ecological disorganization as “green crimes against the ecosystem p. 2”.

147

physical environment in favor of a more critical and complete understanding of the social and institutional dynamics of environmental harm (M’Gonigle 2008). This is particularly necessary since environmental law, while acting on behalf of the state that it should be challenging, cannot objectively address the environmental problems of capital growth. By incorporating the theoretical tenets of political economy with green criminology, it becomes easier to use a socio-cultural lens to emphasize the contribution of economical wealth to understanding the social and cultural norms that hinder successful state environmental regulation.

This chapter therefore takes up the case of the BJCM in Jamaica to examine environmental non-compliance in natural resource management practices. I focus on how the regulatory context defined by Jamaica’s political economy interacts with the social cultural context of communities in the BJCM to account for non-compliance and the lack of effective enforcement. Key to my inquiry is how local peoples view state regulations, as well as how they police themselves, to ensure some degree of environmental conservation. Recommendations are offered as to the types of SCP-ESC programs or initiatives that may result in more favorable environmental outcomes, with an emphasis on community cohesion, even within the legal pluralist BJCM.

Background and Setting

The BJCM National Park is Jamaica’s only National Park and protects Jamaica’s largest remaining tract of intact, closed-canopy broadleaf forest. The park is comprised of two connected mountain ranges, the Blue Mountains and the John Crow Mountains.

It was designated a National Park in 1993 and was also gazetted as a Forest Reserve under the Forest Act of 1937. The BJCM boasts a diverse array of different species of plants and animals, a large number of which are endemic only to Jamaica. The BJCM

148

was designated a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2017 and in addition to being globally recognized for its high level of biological diversity, the park is critical for the water it supplies to the capital city of Kingston and the communities of Eastern Jamaica.

Figure 4-1. Beautiful flora, Blue Mountains. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Despite (or perhaps because of) its importance, multiple regulatory bodies provide a confusing layer of oversight of the BJCM National Park, which often makes it difficult to determine the relevant agency for providing monitoring and enforcement for specific breaches. Jamaica’s environmental regulatory oversight agency, the National

Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA), has divested most of the responsibility for conservation management of the BJCM to the non-governmental Jamaica Conservation

Development Trust (JCDT) (see Appendix D). However, this was not done to focus conservation efforts per se, but to relieve themselves of the task (Otuokon, 2018).

Despite NEPA’s delegation of the responsibilities to the JCDT, it provides limited support financially and operationally to the NGO. As noted by Dr. Susan Otuokon,

Executive Director of the JCDT, poor staffing levels and lack of funding create serious

149

bottlenecks to management effectiveness. Indeed, during my visit to the small JCDT office, I noted approximately 3 staff members and 2 volunteers, one of which was asleep. This lack of commitment on the part of the overarching government agency is not lost on stakeholders who utilize the BJCM’s resources.

As with many developing countries, Jamaica2 retained numerous colonial-era statutes addressing aspects of the environment. These laws were essentially resource management regulations concerned primarily with the various bureaucratic agencies necessary for the allocation and distribution of rights to exploit resources3. The environmental issues were parceled out into separate laws governing exploitation of water, forests, minerals, fisheries and wildlife. As international awareness environmental protection heightened in the 1970s and 80s, Jamaica tended to simply graft environmental provisions onto the existing legal structure without attempting to reorient the underlying developmental implications of the law. This lack of legislative foresight, coupled with the island’s continued inequities in access to market share and land, have had disastrous implications for the ecologically sensitive BJCM. Although Jamaica is ranked fifth in islands of the world in endemic plant species, the BJCM’s forests are being cleared at a rate of approximately 3% annually (Berke and Beatley 1995). This is because since the 1980s, the Government of Jamaica has been preoccupied with

2 Jamaica gained Independence on August 6, 1962.

3 These include The Wildlife Protection Act (1945), The Mining Act (1947), The Country Fires Act (1955), The Beach Control Act (1956), The Town and Country Planning Act (1958) and The Clean Air Act (1961). By 1973 Jamaica had enacted 30 new pieces of environmental legislation dealing with timber harvesting practices, watershed protection and wildlife habitat maintenance. In response, the United Nations declared that “Jamaica was at the forefront of international efforts in environmental management.” (Berke and Beatley 1995)

150

reinvigorating the faltering economy by stimulating exploitation of the country’s resources. In the BJCM, this exploitation tends to take the form of coffee production.

The Role of the Coffee Economy

Coffee was introduced to Jamaica in 1728, and the BJCM was found to be an ideal climate for its cultivation. Today, coffee is the primary crop in the BJCM with an estimated 12,000 acres of land in coffee plantations. Blue Mountain coffee is the most expensive Jamaican coffee on the international market. The high price commanded for

Blue Mountain coffee has resulted in the continued clearing of BJCM land. Much of the land use practices observed by Jamaican farmers today were shaped by the social structure of 17th and 18th centuries. Jamaica’s emancipation from slavery created a post-slavery peasant population which resided in eastern Jamaica’s mountainous terrain. Upon emancipation, a land tenure system mirroring slavery emerged, with the wealthy white plantocracy owning the land and the peasantry farming it.

After emancipation, descendants of plantation slaves were subjected to an oppressive post-colonial legal framework. Plantations in post-emancipation Jamaica were characterized by the concentration of ownership of land, which was largely held by major coffee producers in the Blue Mountains. Since lands that were cleared for coffee and other forms of produce were often unsuitable for farming, this precipitated the need for shifting cultivation. As noted by Dr. Otuokon, Executive Director of the JCDT, crops farmed in these infertile areas tend to last for only two or three years before soil productivity declines. Another key issue with agriculture in the BJCM concerns the accidented topography, and thus the practice of agriculture on sloped land, which can result in erosion. As users of the land, but not owners of it, small farmers engaged in land use practices which did not reflect a personal interest in environmental

151

conservation. This lack of ownership and rotation of cropland persists to this day. The vulnerable soils and concentrated landownership thus likely contribute to unsustainable land use and the ongoing need to clear more forest. With independence and greater autonomy for communities in the BJCM, longstanding practices of land use and coffee cultivation have persisted. This occurs despite the emergence of new regulatory institutions such as the JCDT, and despite the shift in landownership, at least for some communities. This raises important questions about the persistence of unsustainable land use practices in the BJCM. While an obvious explanation in light of political economy and green criminology would concern high market prices for coffee, there may be other aspects to the question, notably for subsistence land use.

As it happens, unsustainable land use for coffee is but one aspect of environmental harm unfolding in the BJCM. According to the JCDT, some farmers clear all the trees from the land before planting coffee, and this practice of mono-cropping increases the likelihood of soil erosion. Farmers also often dispose of the coffee pulp irresponsibly, causing eutrophication in the mountain’s rivers. Deforestation is frequently caused by landslides, timber harvesting and fires as well as from the clearance of land for roads and housing. Additional threats faced within the BJCM include inadequate waste disposal systems and waterway pollution, both from agricultural runoff and waste from the deliberate poisoning of the rivers to harvest fish and crayfish (Otuokon 2018).

These challenges have created longstanding conflicts between the state and local stakeholders over the institutional arrangements in place to regulate natural resource use.

152

Methods

Data Collection

For this study I pursued a qualitative approach to data collection. I opted for a qualitative approach for various reasons. First, a qualitative approach allowed me the freedom to explore the subjective perceptions and lived experiences of the informants through a personal participant-researcher relationship. Second, the semi-structured nature of the data collection via interviews afforded participants the opportunity to share their perspectives, values and customs with me in depth and holistically. Third, the qualitative approach to observation provided the opportunity for me to immerse myself completely in the lives of the participants.

Multiple methods of data collection were used in this research, which permitted triangulation of the data. These methods included 1) participant observation techniques and 2) in-depth semi-structured interviews which included handwritten field notes.

Participant observation was the primary source of data collection. My field notes from participatory observation added contextual depth to the interview data and included descriptions of interview settings, my perceptions of the respondents and any other information that I found relevant to the data collection (Padgett 1998).

I also maintained an audit trail throughout the study, which included four key components: a research log, a reflection journal, analytical memos and a codebook.

153

data. I initiated the codebook during the process of transcribing, reading and analyzing the data collected for the study. I also refined the codebook to assure consistency and reliability during the data coding process (Patton, 2015).

Sampling

Purposive sampling involved recruiting and selecting a small sample of key informants who met the criteria associated with the knowledge required to address the research question of this study, instead of randomly selecting a large sample size.

Purposive sampling of a relatively small number of knowledgeable key informants afforded an in-depth understanding of the participants’ understandings of legal norms pertaining to environmental regulatory compliance among farmers in the BJCM. For this chapter, participant selection for the interviews focused on selection of individuals who were farmers in the BJCM and its buffer zone. This served the purpose of identifying individuals engaged in agricultural land use in the context of community norms as well as the Jamaican state’s regulatory framework.

Credibility Strategies

Prior to embarking on data collection, I submitted my research protocol to the

University of Florida’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). The protocol specifically described how I intended to conduct the research and protect the rights of the participants. The IRB approved the research proposal. In order to address potential confidentiality concerns by research participants during the study, I informed participants of their rights as research participants and informed them about the strategies that I would use to protect their anonymity. I took the following steps to maximize confidentiality for the participants in the study: 1) used pseudonyms and removed all identifying information associated with research participants 2) kept all hard

154

copies of documents or data associated with the study in a locked drawer and 3) retained documents on the computer as password protected documents.

Participant Observation

The field data collection began with my scheduled meeting with the Executive

Director (ED) of a registered charity called the Blue Mountain Project (BMP), which works in the Penlyne Castle and Hagley Gap Communities of the BJCM. The BMP provides health and education resources to the members of both communities. After a description of my research project and a request for assistance, the ED introduced me to 16 local farmers, 9 of whom were coffee farmers and 6 of whom planted a diverse range of farming produce in the two communities. One prospective respondent was the wife of a farmer and therefore she was not interviewed.

Primary data collection was conducted between May and August, 2018. I collected the interview data for this chapter over a three-week period, during which I obtained accommodation with families in the Penlyne Castle and Hagley Gap communities. Prior to initiating each interview, I reviewed the informed consent document (Appendix B) with each participant and addressed any questions that the participant had about the study. I asked for verbal consent to proceed with the interview questions. The length of the interviews varied and the time frame was dependent on whether a farmer was preoccupied on the farm at the time. In 8 of the 15 interviews, I accompanied the farmers into the field as I found that there was significantly more time for them to provide information while walking to their farms (figures 4-2). The interviews were audio-recorded whenever consent was granted. If consent was not granted, responses were recorded in writing. After conducting the interviews, I transcribed the audio recordings verbatim, then I analyzed the data by reducing the information to

155

significant statements, coding those statements, categorizing and segmenting the data, and ultimately identifying themes that emerged from the data. I conducted an initial coding by identifying and labeling segments of text, identifying and categorizing coded segments of texts and constructs, and then using the themes and sub-themes that emerged from the codes as a basis for writing a description that presented the perspectives that comprised the key findings of the study.

I began data analysis during the interviews by writing analytical memos to highlight themes as they arose. Themes from the interviews and from existing literature guided the identification of key themes for the analysis, from among both the themes about which I asked questions and from emergent themes. After initially coding the interviews, I revisited the codes used to label the data and revised the codes to ensure that they accurately captured the meanings conveyed by respondents.

Figures 4-2. Interviewing a strawberry farmer in the Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

156

Findings

Based on the research findings, four institutional mechanisms were identified as key challenges to environmental compliance in the BJCM 1) governmental fragilities and conflicts, 2) inadequate financial resources for farmers, 3) problematic agricultural practices, and 4) inadequate enforcement. These mechanisms, individually and combined, provide explanations for the factors that can and do influence environmental regulatory policy and land use practices. I begin with a description of the land use changes that have recently transpired in the BJCM, stemming from my participant observations. I then turn to the four institutional mechanisms identified in the fieldwork as the key challenges to environmental compliance in the BJCM.

Land Use Change

Habitat destruction, especially in the form of conversion of forest to agriculture and plantation forestry, is among the most serious threats to wildlife in the BJCM. Other threats posed by farmers include hunting and pesticide use. Development pressure from coffee and lumber extraction are also likely to result in the extinction of some endangered species. Evidence of disturbed habitats resulting from encroachment is significant along the periphery of the BJCM Park, with coffee plantations and the removal of trees for lumber being the primary causes among farmers. Land tenure continues to be an issue today, and in light of the high value of Blue Mountain coffee, farmers consider most of the available land (fertile or not) to be suitable for farming.

As was the case before independence, much of the land is not owned by farmers, but is encroached on or leased from the government or wealthy landowners for cultivation. The increased demand for Blue Mountain coffee has resulted in the expansion of farms beyond the buffer zone into protected areas. This has resulted in

157

land clearing for agricultural use in higher elevations as farmers expand farms unto protected land in attempt to fulfill the increased market demand. Small scale farmers are relegated to the steep hillsides where they plant cash crops such as tomatoes and thyme on soil that is too shallow. The increase in marginal land area under use has proceeded with changes in land use itself. There has been a rise in the use of irrigation and pesticides, which pose threats to human and ecological health. There has also been an expansion of irrigation, which threatens the water supply of this designated world heritage site. Farmers have begun to use diesel pumps to extract water out of the mountain’s rivers and lakes, contributing to falling water tables and drying rivers (figures

4-3).

Figures 4-3. Illegal Piping to a farm in the Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Government Fragilities and Conflicts

The Jamaican state has various agencies charged with various aspects of environmental regulation, but some lack the capacity to carry out their mandates. This reflects the interest of the state in regulating, but problems of how best to allocate resources for effective implementation. The lack of capacity in some key agencies can

158

result in regulatory non-compliance and environmental degradation due to illegal activities.

For example, the National Solid Waste Management Agency (NSWMA) states that its mission is:

to be a model solid waste management entity cutting edge technologies to maintain a clean and healthy environment comparable to global standards ...

Nonetheless, it does not actually collect solid waste in Hagley Gap and Penlyne

Castle. Instead, residents have designed their own management system. According to

“Ms. Lyn” one of my hosts:

There is a man that comes every now and again and collect the garbage for a small fee (J$100.00/US $1.00). We just bag it and when he’s ready he will come.

Where does he dispose of the garbage?

I don’t know you know. He carries it somewhere and dumps it.

As the Executive Director of the Portland Environmental Protection Agency explained:

A lot of residents litter or bag garbage for dumping because they say they are giving others the opportunity to earn a living by cleaning up. So they know the garbage is being dumped but they don’t necessarily view it as a bad thing.

In this way, the negligence of one state agency, the NSWMA, creates the justification for farmers and their families to breach environmental regulations as stipulated by other state agencies (NEPA and the JCDT). Weak institutions therefore provide opportunities for environmental crime (Figure 4-4).

159

Figure 4-4: Garbage along the Nature Trail, The Blue and John Crow Mountains, Jamaica taken in 2017 by Tameka Samuels-Jones. Photo courtesy of author.

Set in a broader context, there is a multiplicity of government agencies with jurisdictional overlap in terms of environmental regulation. This has created a scenario in which there are “too many cooks in the kitchen” and some policies and agencies conflict regarding environmental regulation. For example, in 2016, the Ministries with responsibilities for water quality (including the NSWA) signed an MOU to improve collaboration and communication between them. However, according to a 2017

Jamaica Environment Trust report, an impact of this MOU has yet to be seen. Ironically, the very intuitions which are set up to prevent environmental harm, may facilitate this harm through ‘over-regulation” or by not sharing common regulatory objectives. Multiple institutions promulgate contradictory rules of land and resource use over the same commons.

160

The overlapping institutions which govern the BJCM appears to have created an ambiguous line of communication among state authorities, and a lack of respect from farmers under their authority. Farmers in the BJCM who were asked to provide their perspective on the role of NEPA in natural resource management in their community lacked a clear perspective on the agency’s mandate. In fact, Farmer 1 quizzically asked:

Who are they? I know about RADA (the Rural agricultural Development Agency) but I don’t know about NEPA. At least RADA helps us out with cheap fertilizer and some seeds.

Also noted by farmers as a significant factor in their decisions regarding adherence of environmental regulation was the availability of land in approved areas.

They expressed that much of the land that was typically fertile was now dry, as are riverbeds that they usually farmed beside. Though some farmers did not use the term explicitly, it was construed that they were referring to the effects of climate change in the

BJCM. While climate change is not an environmental crime, widespread deforestation promotes localized climate change. This climate change often leads to further environmental harm, prompting land users to find new natural sources to exploit. As noted by Farmer 1:

Boy, I have to go up higher you know. Is not that I want to but things are bad down here. The soil isn’t as good and the heat is killing everything. It isn’t like before. I know it’s not right to go on government lands but sometimes I have to just hide from them.

In the case of the BJCM, these untapped natural resources are often located within the protected BJCM and its buffer zones.

Based on Bruner et al.’s (2001) findings, the extent of the boundary of demarcation is essential in determining the success of enforcement efforts. Similarly, based on my findings, Park Rangers were limited in their enforcement mandate by the

161

fact that they do not always know the location of park boundaries, which hinders enforcement actions against trespassing farmers. The complex history of unclear land leases and sub-leases within the BJCM obfuscates land boundary and ownership issues.

Jamaica is a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change and with the UN’s assistance, REDD+ policies have been incorporated in

NEPA’s management policies and the agency has received financial support to carry out these initiatives Figure (4-5). While NEPA has used some of these funds to spearhead annual forest rehabilitation projects through tree planting, farmers expressed that this could only improve conditions in the long term. Their immediate concerns regarding land availability would therefore continue to guide their decision to farm on more arable land in protected areas.

Figure 4-5. Dilapidated sign in the Blue Mountains evidencing funding from UNDP for Climate Change. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

162

Although the BJCM National Park is a protected forestry reserve, the elected

Members of Parliament (MP) in conjunction with the Commissioner of Lands retains the right to lease land within the Park. The farmers that I interviewed all provided negative commentary on the MPs political decisions and in some cases, indecision, on environmental regulations and policies. Farmer 2 expressed that:

From I live here, born and grow, the only time I ever see a MP is election time. Them come with them pork barrel politics and you vote and after that them missing. What I want to know is this, how them expect us to keep up with their rules? They don’t come and talk to the people. If they did I would tell them we are not the problem is the dutty (dirty) Rastas up the hill there that causing one whole heap (a lot) problem. The black plastic bags with garbage is them (they are) responsible for dem because no running water is up there. They are disgusting man, both government and the Rastas alike.

Several other respondents similarly complained of the Rastafarian community of over several hundred members had taken residence inside the Park, which they claimed had resulted in several environmental problems including pollution, yet the MPs had failed to address this matter. Further complaints regarding the communities’ political representation were raised regarding the MP’s lack of interest in the issues impacting small rural farmers. Several farmers vocalized that the government only cared about large coffee producers therefore they were not concerned about the government’s environmental regulations which could further restrict their agricultural operations.

Inadequate Financial Resources for Farmers

Generally, in Jamaica rural farmers live in difficult economic circumstances in comparison to those who live in urban communities. The government does not allocate a great deal of resources toward communities in the BJCM, particularly in terms of education, health care and infrastructure. There is a general lack of access to essential

163

goods and services. There is also a high rate of unemployment. Those who are economically active are mostly engaged in the agricultural sector.

As is often the case in rural crime, lack of employment opportunities often spur illegal activity (Grote and Neubacher 2016) and this particularly evident in the BJCM.

Lack of monetary incentives for compliance buttress the economic hardship suffered by locals which results in green crime. Jamaica’s high crime rate and low economic standing mean that resources for crime prevention are often directed at street crime, which is perceived to be more important than environmental crime.

Participant observations indicated that economic factors are strong influences on whether farmers in the BJCM consider regulatory compliance when choosing their agricultural practices. Economic factors beyond the control of farmers include market prices, particularly for coffee, land prices and fertilizer costs. Farmers within the sample with limited financial security and high familial expenses expressed that they were primarily concerned with economic survival and felt that their agricultural practices should be compatible with their assets, and not regulatory requirements. Small coffee farmers cited the pressures of adapting to volatile markets as strong influences on decision making. Farmer 3 was incensed:

They say we must do what? Protect land? Their land? I don’t believe they realize that we need to survive. We are not being deliberate, it’s not that we want to mash up [destroy] the land up here but we have to eat. Our families have to eat. Times are hard and because they’re not paying us that makes things even harder. If they come and talk to us, then we will explain. Otherwise we don’t know anything about no land law.

Another key issue therefore is the price farmers receive for coffee. Because of coffee’s historical profitability, commercial pressures are tremendous with potentially negative effects on agricultural practices, tree cover and water use. However, in the

164

past five years consistently lower prices for coffee have added to the risk of environmental regulatory non-compliance as farmers choose farming methods based on affordability and locations based on availability. Resource management decisions on their farms are primarily based upon short-term financial and production needs rather than upon the long-term health of natural rural environments. As noted by Farmer 4, a coffee farmer:

Government doesn’t really care about us. They (the government) drop the price of the coffee beans from $12,000 a box [approximately US $100] to $4000 a box [approximately US $30]. Why? I don’t know why. They are thieves, so they cannot come and tell us where to plant.

Figure 4-6. Traditional 60 lb. Coffee Bean Box, Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Coffee farmers from both the Hagley Gap and Penlyne Castle communities stated that they felt undercompensated for their coffee beans considering the high world market price of Blue Mountain coffee. Farmers were well aware of the large price difference between what they are paid for their coffee and what it is sold for globally. For

165

each 60-lb. box, small coffee farmers earn approximately US$ 0.50 per pound, whereas the coffee beans exported to Japan fetch a hefty price of US $45 per pound (figure 4-6).

Because of poor prices paid for coffee, farmers had to engage in illegal activity for the activity to be profitable. Just over 60% of the respondents indicated that for coffee farming to be profitable, they had to acquire additional land for farming through squatting (encroachment). Though illegal, this form of land acquisition was considered to be “fair” since most of the affected land is owned by the state or by wealthy absentee landowners who were being well-compensated for the coffee.

The concerns of small coffee farmers in the BJCM are particularly disconcerting since the state depends heavily on coffee beans from these small farmers for production (Chai, Tanner, and McLaren 2009). The environmental concern, as espoused by Stuligross (1999), is that an economy based on small scale production yields both a relatively high pollution-to-production ratio, but also creates a political environment in which government monitoring and enforcement are challenges.

Therefore, even if Jamaica chose to pursue an aggressive environmental protection strategy in the BJCM, they would be hard-pressed to devote the resources required for effective monitoring of small-scale farming. In this way, environmental policymakers are faced with a regulatory dilemma. Effective enforcement would put small coffee farmers out of business and slow economic growth, while lax enforcement would increase economic production alongside environmental degradation.

Common Agricultural Practices in the BJCM

Social factors were also identified as influential in determining the role of environmental regulations on agricultural practices in the BJCM. Social factors that were

166

most frequently identified were traditions of slash-and-burn farming practices, the use of chemical inputs in agriculture, and organized agricultural associations.

The lack of land ownership engenders a general disregard among farmers for the long-term impacts of their agricultural practices, resulting in illegal farming practices.

Farmers in both Hagley Gap and Penlyne Castle rely upon a variety of traditional techniques for land clearing and sometimes use them in combination. Although it is an offence to light, maintain or use fire except for domestic reasons,4 farmers routinely use fire to clear vegetation for agriculture. Local residents in the BJCM have a long history of using slash and burn techniques to clear land for subsistence farming. The majority of fires in the Blue Mountains are set by farmers clearing the land for agricultural purposes. According to the Executive Director of the JCDT, there is a deforestation rate of approximately 8% every five years as a result of this method of clearing land.

Slash-and-burn cultivation devastates land in the BJCM, because when trees are cut and burned, the topsoil is exposed to soil erosion, and the soil loses its fertility over a two to three-year period. Once the land is no longer fertile, farmers move on since they do not own the land, and new land is cleared again using slash and burn techniques. Particularly during the dry season, fires ignited to clear relatively small plots of land get out of control and become wildfires. These wildfires cause tree death, landslides and air pollution and destroy large expanses of protected forest. Another major threat is that once the wildfires have passed, the burnt ground provides a nutrient

4 Section 12, National Park Regulations

167

rich seedbed for plants, a situation that invasive species take full advantage of by colonizing the disturbed environment and out colonizing native species.

Respondents with a history of familial land ownership and who wished to pass on the land to future generations expressed that they pursue farming practices with a long- term vision for the protection of the land. Farmer 5, offered the following information:

You have to think about your youth (children) cause nobody else not going to check for them. The same way my father and his mother pass on the land I have that responsibility to, you know. Is not much but it better than nothing. When me mash up the little land I have now how it benefit them. You have ways to do better [farming] but if you not really living for nothing you not going care about land. Them young people here not thinking past today. Even some of the older one dem the way them do the land bring shame to me man.

Their farming techniques relied mostly on rainfall, natural pesticides and compost and manure as fertilizer. These farmers also attempted to cycle nutrients back into the soil by growing a diversity of crops (such as bananas and oranges) and maintaining significant tree canopy which is good for soil and water retention.

Conversely, farmers that I interviewed who were farming on protected state land or encroaching on privately owned land were more focused on short-term production and short-term environmental protection. Farmers in Penlyne Castle admitted that they most often used chemical inputs, the most common fertilizer being RoundUp5. In some instances, farmers indicated that they did not know the name or contents of the chemicals they used, as it was purchased pre-mixed from a third party. For example, I asked Farmer 6:

5 In 2018 the San Francisco Superior court of California awarded $39 million in compensatory damages and $250 in punitive damages in a class action lawsuit alleging that Roundup caused cancer.

168

What is the name of the spray that you use the most?

Well we have some here (points to bottles in figure 4-7). But the one that I use is little cheaper still. That one now I get from the man down the road.

Which man? Does he own a farm shop?

No, is a little side hustle for him still. I don’t really ask too much questions you know?

What is the name of the spray that you get from him?

It doesn’t really have a name still you know, it’s a mix-up.

At the risk of being perceived as asking too many questions myself, I concluded the conversation with the respondent at that point.

During my research, I found no regulatory or policy restrictions on the use of these unknown chemicals. Chemical inputs are particularly harmful because they leach from the soil and result in river eutrophication. Pesticides are also stored in the fatty tissue of animals and have been found in shrimp and river sediments. Despite their choices of chemical inputs, most farmers were aware of the long-term environmental implications of their practices, though none of my respondents had any scientific information regarding the extent of environmental harm.

According to one farmer, the Minister of Parliament (MP) for the community had commissioned that water tests be done on nearby rivers, but when the tests were conducted, the results were never passed on to the community. Farmer 4 expressed that:

You see how help you get depends on who is the MP (Member of Parliament) for the area. Right about now JLP is in power and everybody know that this is a PNP stronghold. So the MP she come and talk some big talk and send people to run all kinds of water tests even though that’s not what we ask her for.

Did you get the results of tests?

169

All now we don’t see anything. So you tell me, how them [the government] know the water polluted then with no tests result? Don’t you see they just want to harass people?

Even if these test results were distributed to the community, it is unlikely that findings would have had any meaningful regulatory or environmental impact as Jamaica does not have legally enforceable water quality standards. Jamaica’s water quality standards were developed in the 1980’s using outdated assumptions and methods and the state tests very few of the parameters contained in the Ambient Water Quality

Standards (Jamaica Environmental Trust, 2017).

Several farmers admitted that they would prefer to switch to organic farming, but that there were no government subsidies in place to assist organic farmers and therefore the prices of their produce might be adversely affected. Despite the challenges to organic farming, I observed more organic agricultural practices in Hagley

Gap through the use of manure as a fertilizer. However, this created a serious problem of disease contagion, evident in the flies throughout the community. Residents also warned me not to drink water from the tap or use it for brushing my teeth. This suggests that even with an interest in organic farming, the state has failed to offer support in the proper use of organic fertilizer and techniques.

170

Figure 4-7. Popular Pesticides used by Farmers in the Blue Mountains. Photo taken by Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Despite the problems of slash-and-burn, chemical and organic agriculture, there have been new initiatives in the BJCM to reconcile agriculture with environmental conservation. In an interview with the Executive Director of the Portland Environmental

Protection Agency (PEPA)6, he introduced me to a few farmers who had established the

Bowden Pen Farmers Association (BPFA), a community-based organization designed to share agricultural practices and environmentally friendly farming strategies.

Comprised of over 50 members, farmers in the BPFA that I spoke with cited benefits such as group interaction, increased environmental responsibility, monitoring for illegal hunting and river poisoning and increased opportunities for ecotourism from group membership. The Executive Director of PEPA emphasized that based on his observation farmers who are members of a group are more open to environmentally safe and organic business practices since they were more likely to receive beneficial scientific information and support as part of a group. However, he acknowledged that

6 PEPA’s mission is to “promote public awareness and action to protect the environment and wise use of natural resources for sustainable development.”

171

because the BJCM is both legally and culturally pluralist, the widescale adoption of this collaborative approach might not be successful across communities.

Inadequate Enforcement

Despite the antipathy that all respondents showed toward the elected MPs, most respondents expressed a favorable attitude toward Park Rangers. This may be as a result of the Park Rangers’ mild approach when confronting offenders. Since the Park

Rangers are members of the surrounding buffer-zone communities, they tend to know most residents personally and refrain from taking severe action such as evicting squatters from protected land, instead preferring to encourage residents to refrain from using dangerous pesticides and cutting trees. In my interviews, BJCM residents expressed appreciation for this leniency from the Rangers, though it is unclear whether this approach is effective in stopping green crime.

In his study on 93 protected tropical forests, Bruner, et al. (2001) found several significant factors that impacted the success of enforcement efforts in protected Parks.

These included:

• The density of the guards, with the 15 most effectively managed parks having a density of 3 per 100km2

• The level of deterrents to illegal activity (particularly for forest clearing) where deterrents were measured of the product of two factors:

o The probability of apprehending violators

o The probability that once apprehended violators will be significantly sanctioned

• The degree of boundary demarcation

Bruner, et al. (2001)’s guidelines, if followed, reveal the extent of the constraints facing the Park Rangers and how these translate into a poor enforcement record. The

172

JCDT’s fleet of rangers has been significantly reduced over the past few years due to decreased funding. Park Ranger 3, stationed at Holywell informed me that over 5 years, the amount of Park Rangers had been reduced from 25 officers to 12. These 12 officers are responsible for monitoring the 200,000 acres, equivalent to 810 km2 of the

BJCM National Park. This represents half the number of enforcement officers recommended based on Bruner, et al.’s (2001) findings.

Bruner’s second factor influencing successful enforcement refers to the probability of apprehending and sanctioning violators. During my field research, I stayed at the Holywell Cabins in the BJCM National Park for a week to observe Park Rangers on duty. Upon obtaining permission from the JCDT to accompany the Rangers, the ED advised me that I could accompany Park Rangers on monitoring exercises on weekdays, as Rangers did not carry out monitoring exercises on weekends. Instead, the

Park Rangers were assigned to “visitor management” on weekends. The monitoring exercises on which I accompanied Park Rangers during the week yielded no apprehensions. It appeared that offenders were quite aware of the Rangers’ schedule for monitoring.

To further complicate monitoring efforts, patrols are conducted using very loud dirt bikes which can be heard from several kms away. Undoubtedly, this alerts offenders in the act, further lessening apprehension. Based on information that I received from the

JCDT, NEPA used to make vehicles available to the Park Rangers for patrols, but this assistance eventually declined. Under orders from the central government, the practice of providing vehicles to the JCDT was formally withdrawn.

173

Park Rangers advised me that in situations where they happened to catch violators in the act, they resorted to using vague threats and moral suasion to achieve some progress toward compliance since they lacked powers of arrest. Park Ranger 3 recounted,

The thing is, if we see them we warn them. We give them a warning letter- it is a standard letter and we just fill it in. If it’s like a repeat offender though, we might get the help of the authorities like the police or the JDF or so. Especially if we have to seize wildlife or timber or so. But most of the time we just let them go with a warning.

The standard warning letter is prepared on the spot for violators and threatens further action if the violation is repeated (see Appendix D). When asked how offenders are tracked to determine recidivism, particularly if offenders are issued letters from different Park Rangers, Park Ranger 3 stated that

there was really no way to know.

Adding to the complexity of ensuring enforcement action after apprehending violators is that breaches of environmental regulatory laws are notoriously difficult to prove. Enforcement officers advised that it is often difficult to catch perpetrators in the act.

As a consequence, the judicial system tends to focus on other priorities. If an offender is caught committing a serious offence such as wildlife poaching, the judicial system, faced with an ever-increasing violent crime rate island wide, is often lenient toward environmental offenders. This laissez faire approach to the cases brought before the Courts demotivates Park Rangers who often traverse difficult terrain and face off against fellow community members to bring these perpetrators to justice. Since Bruner, et al. (2001) emphasize that the best way to ensure compliance is with adequate and

174

consistent enforcement, the response of the judicial system to offenders makes this goal unlikely.

To many Jamaicans, environmental legislation has a negative connotation, stressing what should not be done rather than providing social or economic incentives for positive behavior. The combination of partially enforced environmental regulations and the lack of incentives for compliance has resulted in a situation in which Jamaica must consider strategies outside of enforcement for securing environmental regulatory compliance.

This is where alternative approaches such as SCP-ESC become potentially important. SCP-ESC policies in the BJCM could entail decentralizing park management and encouraging programs that are driven by local residents. Income-generating sustainable livelihoods projects such as the sale of coffee directly from local farmers to exporters, the promotion of small coffee farm tours, and incentives for organic coffee products are examples of policies that could stimulate regulatory compliance.

175

Figure 4-8. Grinding Blue Mountain Coffee. Activities such as these could spur economic growth through controlled eco-tourism and the direct sale of coffee to guests. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

Discussion

The regulatory ineffectiveness which appears to characterize the Jamaican state in environmental protection reflects the systemic nature of environmental degradation that is due to market forces and other factors operating in the national political economy. The findings above indicate that the implementation of environmental law in the BJCM is problematic in its current form for social, political and economic reasons that stem from local conditions at the community level. Here the political economy in a country reliant on exploitation of natural resources reveals the contradictions of the roles of the state. Environmental law in Jamaica both creates the regulations for deterring environmental harm while simultaneously creating the conditions to facilitate it, at least

176

at the local level. Strong environmental regulation in Jamaica translates into asking the state to restrict its own development. Further, from the state’s perspective, robust regulatory intervention in the BJCM may even be perceived as unnecessary since the

“problem” exists in a very rural area with relatively light tourist activity. This assumption is made based on the state’s plethora of environmental laws and regulations, which have failed to impact land use in the BJCM.

What currently exists may best be described as various piecemeal legislations that connect several environmental regulatory bodies on paper only. When Bruner, et al.’s (2001) findings are applied, they further highlight the factors that adversely impact environmental regulatory compliance in the BJCM. Firstly, the few Park Rangers, twelve in total, are woefully incapable of traversing the 810 km2 of protected area in the

BJCM and represents a skeletal enforcement team based on Bruner et al.’s (2001) standards. Bruner also highlighted the degree of boundary demarcation as impactful on the success of environmental regulatory efforts. The unclear delineation of boundaries in some areas of the BJCM, and the confusing interspersed private land leases within the BJCM and its buffer zone, has been consistently confusing for enforcement officers.

The Commissioner of Lands and NEPA are charged with this delineation, but while Park

Rangers expressed some improvement, many of the boundaries remain unclear.

Therefore, at certain points within the BJCM they are uncertain of their jurisdiction.

The few Park Rangers that are responsible for the protection of the BJCM often allow ‘small-time’ offenders to slide with a verbal warning. This reduces the deterrent effect on violators of being caught, since a penalty is rarely applied. Further, Park

Rangers do not have powers of arrest. With relatively few Rangers and a lot of ground

177

to cover, the Park Rangers struggle to respond to the threats posed by human activities in the Park and around the buffer zone. Some residents that expressed concern about the environmental decline in the BJCM admitted to me that they were unwilling to report violations because they felt that the Park Rangers lacked the institutional capability to effect enforcement. Further, a general spirit of distrust for politicians renders local farmers unwilling to surrender their farming practices for a legal system they hardly identify with. Land use rules have existed “on the books” since British colonizers became concerned with soil erosion in the 1930s7 and are simply out of touch with the needs and priorities of the BJCM’s residents today. Though the leniency of judges in environmental cases may be interpreted as empathy toward the plight of the marginalized, it also demonstrates a disregard of the efforts that Park Rangers and some community members place on environmental protection.

Fragmentation in environmental regulation in the BJCM includes unaligned environmental governance processes, policies and procedures; vertical fragmentation between the different spheres of government, and horizontal fragmentation between the different line functionaries in each sphere, as well as lack of a co-operative governance and an integrated approach to environmental management. Fragmentation poses several challenges in environmental regulation. In the case of the BJCM, it has resulted in disjointed and incremental governance processes that are inefficient and unsustainable, with significant duplication and overlap of both governance mandates and adoption and use of regulatory tools. Such fragmentation can be found at both

7 As highlighted earlier, many of Jamaica’s environmental laws predate Independence. One of Jamaica first Environmental Protection Acts, the Forest (Removal of Timber and Property) Regulations was enacted in 1938.

178

policy and operational levels of government. Whilst fragmentation at the policy level is evident from fragmented legislation and governance structures, fragmentation at operational levels presents itself in terms of the fragmented use of governance tools, including environmental authorizations.

Governmental ineffectiveness has led to proposals for collaboration with NGOs.

In the academic literature, NGO’s rather than local governments have dominated discussions concerning community self-management. NGOs tend to offer more efficient and innovative decision-making methods because of their institutional characteristics such as small size, flexibility, “shallow” hierarchies, and short lines of communication

(Andersson and Ostrom 2008). As decentralized institutions, NGO staff members may also possess more extensive field knowledge and experience than do government officers. A high level of personal motivation among voluntary workers can also compensate for a lack of technical expertise. NGO’s tend to pay greater attention to social development, supporting sustainable subsistence production and favoring labor- intensive projects that maximize the resources of the assisted community (Andersson and Ostrom 2008). NGOs can also appear more institutionally acceptable to communities accustomed to adversarial relationships with government agencies.

Notably, Dr. Susan Otuokon of the JCDT was present at all the local environmental events that I attended during my research, whereas representatives from NEPA were not. This adds validity to those claims. The partnership between the local government and the JCDT seemed crucial in determining regulatory success.

Regardless of their inherent qualities however, NGOs cannot generally be a substitute for local governments. They are self-appointed rather than elected

179

organizations, and their social origins may lie in the dominant rather than the dominated groups in society. In the case of JCDT, it had a close relationship to the NEPA.

Because of their small size, NGOs may experience dependence on one or two charismatic leaders, exhibit highly personalized styles of management, and can consequently be unsystematic in their operations, resulting in a lack of organizational capacity building. NGOs may also suffer from problems related to inefficient coordination and fragmentation of effort, resulting in higher transaction costs for communities wishing to develop environmental management programs. These concerns were noted at the JCDT. Despite its best efforts, the small JCDT must rely on NEPA financially and is subject to the idiosyncrasies of its management style and priorities.

Further, though the JCDT manages the BJCM National Park, several other regulatory bodies also maintain jurisdiction of the BJCM in part, resulting in an ad hoc environmental regulatory system.

The theoretical underpinnings of political economy that may facilitate regulatory reform in the BJCM borrow concepts from ecological modernization which suggests that at least in the sort-term there is the possibility of implementing win-win solutions that improve the compatibility of institutions with ecological imperatives (M’Gonigle 2008). As noted through their advocation of SCP-ESC policies (Lynch, Stretesky, and Long 2018), problems with ensuring compliance with environmental regulations has led to a shift from criminal enforcement to incentive programs. Critics have long noted that strict criminal enforcement of rural land use rules is not an effective way to achieve behavioral modification in the face of social norms and economic incentives. However, the problem with implementing an incentive-based strategy in a SIDS such as Jamaica

180

is that it is expensive. Small developing countries like Jamaica are unlikely to be able to afford to create incentives that can compensate for the potential economic rewards of natural resource exploitation.

Nevertheless, a successful environmental regulatory framework, whether customary, state-led or mixed, is critical for the protection of the BJCM’s natural resources. The very arguments regarding insufficient resources used by the government to justify inaction is also used by rural farmers in the BJCM to justify non- compliance. The state cites a lack of financial resources as its justification to prioritize agricultural practices that facilitate economic development instead of environmental governance. Local residents, particularly farmers, similarly emphasize that financial imperatives guide their land use. Since both the state and the farmers share this perspective, non-compliance is tacitly accepted all around.

Unquestionably, there are areas that are being farmed that are untenable due to the geology, soil and slope (Dr. Susan Otuokon, 2018). However, convincing the farmers to set aside land for reforestation will require economic substitutes. Though it is obvious that the BJCM must diversify its economic sources for the benefit of the environment, thus far, the government has no environmentally friendly income generating jobs planned for the BJCM beyond the few eco-tourism activities being offered through major tourism attraction companies. NEPA’s short-sighted vision of eco- tourism as a profitable source of income for locals in the BJCM is demonstrated by the enforcement data that it provided to me during my research (see Appendix C). Of the 18 violations listed between the period 2012-2017, one of the named violators was its own co-agency and manager of the BJCM National Park, the JCDT. While I was unable to

181

obtain comprehensive information regarding the violation, the limited data from NEPA suggested that the JCDT had violated its regulations regarding the conduct of eco- tourism activities in the BJCM. Accordingly, NEPA issued a warning letter to the JCDT.

While this enforcement action is strange on many levels, what is most curious is that

NEPA funds the JCDT and has devolved all responsibility regarding Park Management to that agency. This enforcement action clearly indicates a lack of partnership and poor relations between the two organizations. Even more disturbing is the glaring hypocrisy of NEPA’s willingness to penalize the JCDT, but not the violators that the JCDT brings to NEPA’s attention.

The findings clearly indicate that the economic activities of the BJCM’s residents are instrumental in determining environmental regulatory outcomes in the BJCM. The

Hagley Gap and Penlyne Castle communities are marginalized in their access to good roads, schools, clinics and employment beyond farming. The findings indicate that as a result, local residents are more likely to make short-term decisions to enable them to meet their basic needs rather than for long-term environmental sustainability. With these socio-economic issues in mind, it is clear that regulators cannot simply “add environment and stir” to the regulatory framework (M’Gonigle 2008).

Environmental compliance in the BJCM will require a more creative deterrence approach along the lines of SCP-ESC, more grounded in social control. A starting point for examining a successful environmental regulatory monitoring and enforcement approach for the BJCM would entail using the historical and structural factors that define the community’s natural resource decision-making to guide environmental regulations.

This would draw attention to the types of social control measures that would address

182

the BJCM’s over-extended environmental and economic system. The legal pluralism examined throughout this dissertation highlights the flexibility and fluidity that can guide regulation and drawing from the best of these indigenous and religious systems may provide adaptations for environmental regulatory governance in the BJCM. For example, the neighboring Maroons are guided by Cudjoe’s Treaty of 1739 for their use of natural resources. As illustrated by the Bowden Pen Farmers Association, similar community-based self-regulatory agreements may provide a forum for other local farming communities to address agricultural and land use challenges. These community groups may then receive state funding for meeting certain administrative and regulatory targets which have been developed with the participation of local community members.

There is also much to learn from the nearby Rastafarians who have successfully used organic farming practices in the BJCM for decades. Engaging their assistance in sharing these environmentally friendly practices with neighboring farmers would not only guide farmers toward low cost organic farming practices but may create an avenue for greater social inclusion for Rastafarians. Again, by funding an initiative such as this one, the state has an opportunity to use ESC to build local trust, sustainably maintain coffee production, motivate social inclusion among pluralist groups and encourage environmental protection. Though this would require forfeiting some financial resources, however the environmental costs of environmental degradation and pollution in the

BJCM also bear long term costs; costs which may be far more long-term and far- reaching.

183

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

Environmental regulations and natural resource use, like any other complex issue confronting protected area management, is characterized by competing and conflicting perspectives, particularly in legally pluralist states. Resolving these contested, nuanced issues is by no means a trivial task. Nevertheless, reflecting on how different groups conceptualize environmental protection and how resource use fits within the broader historical and social dynamics of the BJCM offers considerable insight into understanding how to successfully advance environmental protection in this sensitive protected area. Lessons from the BJCM are likely to also apply in similar cases of legally pluralist societies where the state and local peoples have distinct rules for access to and use of natural resources.

Jamaica’s biodiversity in the BJCM is threatened on a variety of fronts. The use of natural resources within the boundaries of protected areas and in the buffer zones of protected areas is beyond sustainable limits. The impacts include the loss of habitats and associated species, and the consequent the reduction of ecosystem functions and the Here the inadequacy of state monitoring and enforcement institutions becomes evident. When pluralism creates conflict among the respective groups in the BJCM

(Maroons, Rastafarians and local farmers), environmental regulatory compliance becomes even more difficult to achieve. At present, opportunities for the various groups to achieve the potential social and ecological benefits from participatory governance are not being realized. These issues are compounded by limited state institutional capacity that fails to ensure appropriate protected area management. A host of globally significant species and associated habitats in the BJCM will be lost if overexploitation,

184

habitat conversion and inadequate enforcement continue to creative an environment for the erosion of ecosystem functionality.

This conclusion begins by reviewing the major findings of each chapter, concerning 1) legal pluralism, 2) post-colonialism and green crime, and 3) the political economy of green crime in the BJCM. I then address the broader implications of the study as a whole. Specifically, I discuss how the key findings advance the literature on green crime, particularly in legally pluralist, post-colonial states. Finally, I close this concluding chapter with implications for key stakeholders in similar jurisdictions who, like me, do not believe that a choice must be made between the preservation of their ecosystem and the protection of their culture.

Summary of Key Findings

Chapter 2 focused on legal pluralism in the BJCM and the complexities of enforcing state law on lands owned and occupied by an autonomous indigenous group, the Maroons. Through a systematic examination of the Maroon polity of the BJCM, this research provided details and interpretations of contemporary Maroon autonomy which has survived via a delicate interplay of long-cultivated strategies of resistance – first against the British colonizers and then the Jamaican state. This research provided new information regarding the distinct Maroon environmental ideology, where the human, spiritual and biotic realms coexist and the state’s legitimacy in dictating natural resource use and protection is explicitly rejected on the grounds of sovereignty.

Drawing on interview statements and participant observations, I examined the sociological and political contours of the BJCM’s Maroons, small agrarian communities largely engaged in subsistence agriculture and cash cropping. I concluded that despite rejecting state environmental law, Maroons embody practices of ecological stewardship

185

and preservation, emergent from their reliance on the land during the period of their escape from slavery. A key driving force in the contemporary Maroon resistance to state environmental laws are their own customary laws which reflect the spiritual and historical significance of the land to Maroon culture. The Maroons are a cultural marker of legal pluralism in the BJCM, and this in combination with their language and rituals further reinforces their distinction from other Afro-Jamaicans and legitimizes their territory as a sacred landscape. This distinct environmental ethos continues to influence

Maroon natural resource use today. Much of the Maroons’ environmental conflicts with the state today are as a result of the state’s failure to 1) formally acknowledge the sovereignty of the Maroons and 2) its failure to provide adequate enforcement assistance when needed. The resolution of these issues was noted in Chapter 2 as key to establishing a relationship of trust and collaboration between the state and the

Maroons.

Another key finding was that while legal pluralism between the state and local peoples may impact environmental regulatory outcomes, intra-group differences may also result in adverse environmental impacts. The behavior of the younger Maroon generation as reflected in their pollution of the BJCM’s rivers is non-compliant with both state and Maroon law. At present, the state has failed to assist in prosecuting the offenders, and Maroon enforcement methods (severe beatings) border on human rights violations. I deduced that by failing to assist, the state has missed opportunities to forge critical linkages with the Maroons, linkages which would have better positioned them to collaborate on natural resource use and protection.

186

Chapter 3 analyzed how contemporary legal narratives regarding environmental management and land use were impacted by post-colonial discourse in the case of the

Rastafarians. One key finding in Chapter 3 was that although the rules governing land use differ between the Maroons and the Rastafarians based on spiritual and religious idiosyncrasies, there are similarities in the way in which land is regarded by both groups, including the significance and respect for land and the use of geographic features and physical objects to determine boundaries. The most common form of customary land tenure is based on communal ownership across both groups, which is founded on blood relationships and contribution to village enterprise. As noted in

Chapter 4, the Maroons and Rastafarians have a historically contentious relationship, however their strong principles on environmental stewardship present a commonality that may, if combined, present collaborative land use opportunities to reduce environmental stress.

For the Rastafarians, beliefs regarding issues such as sovereignty, oppression and respect for religious rights are important factors that contribute to environmental regulatory non-compliance. This is because to Rastafarians, the historical management and protection of land was designed to facilitate the marginalization of those brought to the island as slaves. To Rastafarians, the ascent to true post-colonial freedom means the ability to own and control their own land. Access to resources for subsistence- based use has a long history as a contentious issue between Rastafarians and the state. The underlying message conveyed by Rastafarians throughout my research, is that past inequalities must be addressed through benefitting the poor. If the state engages Rastafarians in dialogue regarding their more fundamental interests, such as

187

land ownership and respect for their religious rights, then highlighting the more entertaining aspects of their culture, such as their music, may result in collaborative decisions regarding land use. At the very least, the state should be able to compensate

Rastafarians using some of the developmental assistance obtained from the UN and other major donors for maintaining intangible cultural heritage. Since it is unlikely that

Rastafarians will accept financial ‘handouts’ from the state, land (such as that in

Pinnacle which they now claim to own anyway) should be offered to them with clear delineated boundaries designed to accommodate some expansion in the size of the community. This would facilitate the proper implementation of sewage facilities and extend some state access to the land to ensure environmental sustainability.

Chapter 4 focused on the explanations that coffee farmers and other residents of

Hagley Gap and Penlyne Castle provided for non-compliance with state environmental regulatory law and the challenges that park Rangers face in monitoring and enforcing these laws. Using Bruner, et al.’s (2001) study of the factors that are most likely to result in successful environmental regulation, I found that social relationships with community members, low guard density, and lack of clarity regarding the boundaries of the BJCM park were indeed key factors leading to inadequate enforcement of state regulations.

Additionally, based on my observation and interviews with the JCDT, a primary threat in the BJCM is the destruction of habitat via deforestation, mostly for coffee plantations. Biodiversity in the BJCM is strongly impacted by inappropriate and unsustainable habitat modifications. Mining, farming, grazing, deforestation and illegal land appropriation degrade and accelerate the loss of globally significant species and ecosystems. The expansion of coffee production in particular in the BJCM adversely

188

impacts intact forests. With respect to coffee, the need to plant more in order to increase one’s income is largely based on the decreasing value that the state offers for their coffee beans. Since this demand for land is in part due to the state’s market driven initiatives, regulators can only initiate appropriate reform by examining how access to additional land may be sustainably accommodated within the state’s broader developmental plans for coffee production.

Some farmers in the Hagley Gap and Penlyne Castle communities also expressed a lack of knowledge of the environmental laws that were applicable to them.

The prohibitions on land use were not a primary concern of residents. Rather, farmers cited that instead of environmental laws, the most fundamental benefit that the state could provide was tangible and direct assistance in developing their communities.

Assistance in the form of subsidies, tax-breaks, seeds and fair compensation for coffee beans would improve relations between the community and state, create incentives for more sustainable land use, and by extension facilitate a higher rate of environmental regulatory compliance.

Preliminary Comparative Analysis

Based on these findings, a preliminary comparative assessment may be drawn between the Maroons, Rastafarians and Local farmers in relation to their perception of and compliance with environmental regulatory law in the BJCM. This comaparative analysis is particularly useful for two reasons. One relates to the crucial role of perception of state law among various groups within a single state. The other allows for an examination of the various ways in which the state may play a pivotal role in environmental governance among groups with varying levels of legal autonomy.

189

Relevant to this analysis is the question of the ability of the state to balance indigenous, religious and local rights and policies with the governments priorities for environmental protection. The Maroons in this study demonstrated that despite legal sovereignty, their enforcement methods have yielded inconsistent results which are largely based on the age group of the offender. As a result, the Maroons have sought state assistance, though they have received little of the enforcement assistance requested. In the case of the Rastafarians, this study raised pertinent issues regarding the legitimacy of their religious laws in environmental governance, since the extent to which they can exercise autonomy is largely based on that which the state allows.

Though state agencies have failed to intervene in Rastafarian illegal land use, they maintain the right to do so. Perhaps it is because of this fragile decision-making power that Rastafarians have refused to yield any further authority to the state through compliance or collaboration.

Ironically, the research group that demonstrated the least knowledge of state environmental regulations, and the widest variety of environmentally harmful behavior in the BJCM, were the farmers under direct state rule. Little attempts have been made at participatory environmental governance initiatives between the state and farmers.

Whereas this is also the case with Maroons based on legal sovereignty, and

Rastafarians based on ICH principles, the state’s lackluster efforts at enforcement of and collaboration with the BJCM’s farmers is based on regulatory fragmentation and a lack of willpower. This fragmentation and motivation may be contrasted with the organized and democratic Maroon Council, and the determined and disciplined

Rastafarians.

190

Accordingly, perceptions of state environmental law among the groups vary –

Maroons do not adhere to state law and there are very few attempts by the state to enact enforcement. This lack of action is presumably driven by fear of the supernatural.

Similarly, Rastafarians do not comply with state environmental regulations, however the lack of enforcement against this group may be explained by the possibility of unfavorable public opinion and international attention. Of the three groups examined, the farmers reflected the most disparity in perception of state law and regulatory compliance. This group differed in that there were some attempts at enforcement, although these attempts were mitigated by the leniency of Park Rangers. Also importantly was that the farmers displayed the widest range of environmental harm. The mosts significant difference between the farmers and the other groups under study however, was the fact their non-compliance was not motivated by historical, racial or social justice issues (as in the case of the Maroons and Rastafarianism) but rather for economic reasons.

Quantitative research to determine the major predictors of non-compliance among and within each of these groups will be undertaken by the researcher in 2020.

This research will further unpack the intricacies of each group as reflected in the preliminary findings and provide data for additional analysis.

191

Broad Conclusions

While this dissertation has highlighted many of the threats in the BJCM caused by different social groups, many of the causes also stem from broader macro-economic and policy factors. Jamaica’s impoverished economy is heavily reliant on the exploitation of natural resources. National development policies seem to promote or at least tolerate unsustainable practice in fishing, agriculture, forestry, tourism and mining.

Jamaica lacks an adequate environmental institutional and legal framework, and national policies and approaches do not provide clear legislative mandates or come with the financial support necessary to protect the environment, within or outside of protected areas. The pressure of debt servicing from 1980 to the present, as well as its dependence on agricultural exports, means that as with many other developing countries, Jamaica is in a perpetual state of catch up with the developmental models prescribed by international lending agencies. In order to meet the developmental obligations required, Jamaica has placed a great deal of stress on its natural resources, and it is no different in the BJCM, where rural farmers attempt to increase the production of agricultural goods.

Yet in contrast to the blatant environmental degradation faced in other parts of the island and BJCM, the values and beliefs held regarding environmental protection in the Maroon and Rastafarian communities are sacred products of their culture. Indeed, as the findings of this study illustrate, environmental stewardship varies across the local groups in the BJCM and is uniquely motivated. As reflected in Chapter 2, Maroons are guided by their ancestors, who are believed to possess supernatural wisdom regarding the rules that govern their environment. Therefore, state-derived environmental law lacks spiritual and jurisdictional relevance in their community and is viewed as inferior.

192

For the Rastafarians in Chapter 3, religious and historical factors also play a significant role in their determination of the legitimacy of, and therefore their obligation to, state environmental law. However, unlike the Maroons, Rastafarian non-compliance is not based on claims of sovereignty but rather on the lack of sovereignty which continues to oppress them as former slaves.

If as posited by Benda-Beckman (1984) regulatory compliance is largely determined by socially constructed norms, values, beliefs and definitions, then context must be the foundation of regulatory law. This becomes even more important when recognizing the ways in which contextual factors guide a community’s interaction with its natural environment in legally pluralist societies. Yet to suggest that environmental regulatory compliance in the BJCM is merely guided by socio-historical factors is only marginally informative. If conflicting views regarding natural resource use are to be reconciled and complex issues resolved, the demands of the constituencies must be met with attentiveness, even if not acquiescence. For instance, despite the organic lifestyle of the Rastafarians, it is not recommended that the state accede to their demands to own the land that they encroach on. This would only raise additional conflicts with other groups that feel that as descendants of slaves they too should be entitled to land from the state. Instead, collaborative regulatory efforts with Rastafarian communities in the BJCM may mean a process of reconciliation for past and current harms by acknowledging the state’s colonization of parts of their culture (their music) and 2) considering the return of the land that Rastafarians were forcibly removed from in

Pinnacle as an act of goodwill and recognition of the value of that land to their faith. The

193

fact that this land is located in St. Catherine, well outside of the protected Blue

Mountains would also make this offer more ecologically favorable.

Implications for Stakeholders

Although I adopted a case-study approach in examining the factors that impact environmental regulatory law in the BJCM, I believe that these findings may be applicable beyond Jamaica’s boundaries. For instance, in other legally pluralist, post- colonial states, this study may offer insight into the factors that impact the way that state regulations are conceptually understood by different groups. As I mentioned in Chapter

1, the importance of legal pluralism appears to have grown considerably in criminology over the past few decades. But to date, criminology has largely failed to incorporate the role of legal pluralism as a challenge to environmental regulatory efforts, particularly in post-colonial developing states. This task has largely fallen to other disciplines, such as geography and sociology. With this study, I attempted to contribute to filling this research gap by first exploring and synthesizing existing scholarship and then empirically investigating how natural resource use and protection materializes in the context of a legally pluralist, protected area. The findings of this study demonstrate that, if anything, environmental regulatory compliance among pluralist groups is a multi- dimensional concept.

This study has illustrated that within environmental law and theory, green crime is a highly complex issue, particularly in post-colonial states. As evidenced throughout this dissertation, environmental laws in Jamaica have significant compliance and enforcement limitations. Jamaica’s ability to cost-effectively protect biodiversity within protected areas is constrained by a fragmented, inconsistent and incomplete legal and institutional framework. Twenty-one laws and nearly twenty national policies and plans

194

describe the national system of protected areas. The regulatory framework allows for the establishment of seventeen types of protected areas. Four agencies govern the island’s thirty-two protected areas. Many of these agencies delegate management responsibilities to co-management proxies through separate legal agreements. This highly complex and tangled regulatory matrix hinders the achievement of cost-effective conservation programing.

It is generally ‘informal’ laws which find their authority in the legally pluralist

BJCM. This suggests that being a legally pluralist protected area simply facilitates, but does not cause, regulatory non-compliance in the BJCM among local groups. While legal pluralism plays a role in the type of environmental regulations that are typically violated in the BJCM, on their own it does not fully explain the lack of compliance with these laws. The literature states that in addition to the enactment of environmental legislation and participatory governance among legally pluralist groups, monitoring and enforcement are essential for environmental conservation (Carter 1997). Ironically, in this study, it appears that the indigenous and religious groups under observation apply more monitoring and enforcement for environmental conservation than the State does.

Therefore, the long-term solution to environmental harm in the BJCM is a consolidated plan supported by a unified institutional framework equipped with the legislative mandate, management capacity and financial support required to ensure protected area conservation. Financial, administrative and conservation management of the BJCM should be efficient and benefit from a consolidated and integrated institutional framework. Management should be defined by informed decision-making and benefit from a robust supply of sound data. This should include active monitoring by Park

195

Rangers and the use of findings to guide daily and long-term supervision. The system should have the support of the locally diverse local communities as well as the government.

Local stakeholders also have a significant role in contribution to improved regulation and must be engaged by the state. In terms of the youth, this research found that a great deal of unemployed youth reside within the BJCM and its buffer zone.

Among the Maroons, in particular, unemployed youth appeared to engage in environmentally harmful fishing practices as a form of rebellion for not feeling a sense of social cohesion with older Maroons. The government should consider creating potential change agents from unemployed youth in the BJCM by creating a cadre of young volunteer Park Rangers who demonstrate a willingness to work towards the conservation of resources in the BJCM. Since the current roster of Park Rangers is skeletal, this may also present an opportunity for the state to 1) increase monitoring and enforcement without a financial burden and 2) create an inventory of experienced volunteers from which to add to the existing team of or replace Park Rangers as necessary.

As noted, before, a range of SCP-ESC opportunities are available that the state should explore for encouraging compliance among farmers and other residents of the

BJCM. As is the case in most plural societies, different approaches will be required for each group. However, common cultural thread among Jamaicans is a competitive nature which may be capitalized on to improve relations across all groups and improve environmental management. The state may consider implementing an island wide protected area competition program with substantial pecuniary (or other) benefits to

196

protected areas that reflect sound environmental governance practices. Since the BJCM is one protected area, collaboration would be required across all groups with a view to accessing the related financial benefits (which appear to be needed among all groups in this study).

Future Research Needs

While this research has raised important social, historical and policy issues regarding sound environmental governance, additional work remains. The findings, particularly those regarding the farmers, reflect the key positions of dependency theory that debt and structural adjustments increase pollution (Reed 2009). The role of specific structural adjustment and debt policies on the environmental and economic impact would undoubtedly provide data that developing countries may refer to in their negotiations with multilateral lending agencies.

Intra-group studies of the dynamic changes that impact environmental choices; qualitative longitudinal study. Similarly, far more research must be undertaken in the

BJCM in order to ascertain the contribution that Maroon and Rastafrian communities to environmental harm. While there has been much work on the rates of deforestation in the BJCM, little work exists as to the extent that each group may be held responsible for the BJCM’s decline.

Of course, the suggestions made throughout this dissertation may not necessarily yield a resolution for all stakeholders. Many complex issues concerning the management and governance of protected areas are characterized by conflicting or competing values, norms, beliefs and definitions that ultimately give rise to environmental claims that are far from intersecting. Therefore, there is no correct answer as to whose morality, interests or logic is “right” among the various

197

communities. As this study demonstrates, instead of reinforcing colonial-type state power, or reinforcing hegemonic state law, it may well be more necessary to start the process of resolving the myriad complex issues facing environmental regulation in the

BJCM by formally recognizing and appreciating the diversity in environmental stewardship that reflects the diversity of Jamaica overall.

Figure 5-1. Overlooking the Blue Mountains. Photo taken for Tameka Samuels-Jones, 2018. Photo courtesy of author.

198

APPENDIX A SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

QUESTIONS FOR RESIDENTS OF HAGLEY GAP AND PENLYNE CASTLE

1. Would you say that the BJCM is important to you? Why?

2. What is your primary occupation?

3. What do you think of when you hear the terms “environmental protection” and “protected area” in relation to the BJCM National Park? (If respondents do not know I will explain it in patois1).

4. What environmental regulations do you find difficult to abide by?

5. Do you comply with them? Why? Why not?

6. Does your community representative discuss environmental compliance with you?

7. How often are community meetings held?

8. Do government officials visit these meetings? If so, have you seen any changes to environmental regulations that reflect those of you/your community members?

9. Have you ever been fined/otherwise sanctioned for failure to comply with environmental regulations? If so, tell me about your experience.

10. What governmental support do you need to comply (if you are not doing so)?

11. Do you think current environmental regulations help/hurt you?

12. Do you think local residents should have access to the resources in the BJCM National Park? Why?

13. What if anything would you change about current environmental regulations for the BJCM National Park?

1 Jamaican Patios (pronounced patwah)- Jamaican dialect used by locals more commonly than traditional English.

199

QUESTIONS FOR MAROONS AND RASTAFARIANS

1. What are your thoughts and feelings about the relevance of state environmental law in your community? Why do you feel this way?

2. What are your thoughts on possible environmental harms in your community? What do you think causes these harms?

3. What steps are taken in your community to address this problem? / these problems?

4. How would you describe your community’s relationship with environmental government officials?

5. Do you think these officials typically act in the best interest of members of your community? Why or why not?

6. Could you describe any changes that you’ve noticed over the past few years in how people in your community interact with the environment? Do you observe more or less breaches of your laws?

7. Can you describe the most important ways in which you use the natural resources in this area?

8. Have you ever been challenged by the government for using these resources in this way? If yes, please describe your experience. If not, what do you think you would do if you were?

9. Do you have any questions for me?

200

QUESTIONS FOR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS – NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE JAMAICA CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT TRUST

1. Which of the environmental regulations that are currently in place to protect the Blue Mountains is least complied with? Do you have available statistics?

2. Why do you believe this is so?

3. What are the most common sanctions for this environmental breach in the Blue Mountains?

4. How often are meetings held with local stakeholders?

5. What are the most common issues raised and how have these been addressed?

6. Has the Protected Areas System Master Plan been finalized? Which agency is responsible for implementing the policies for the BJCM National Park as detailed in the document?

7. How many enforcement officers are assigned to the Blue Mountains?

8. What training do they receive on the environmental regulations in place for the Blue Mountains?

9. Which of the multiple agencies that regulate the Blue Mountains is responsible for developing the primary legislation?

10. How are enforcement functions allocated between agencies?

11. How often has the primary legislation been revised since its enactment and what prompted these revisions?

12. Are there currently any proposals in place for further revisions or environmental regulations? Why? Why not?

13. To what extent are environmental regulations in the Blue Mountains a product of international regulatory requirements?

201

APPENDIX B NEWSPAPER REPORTS

202

'Bring in all Rastas, dead or alive!'

Published: Sunday | April 7, 2013 | 12:00 AM

Carolyn Cooper, Contributor

Those are the infamous words of Sir Alexander Bustamante, national hero and first prime minister of independent Jamaica. Bustamante's turn of phrase comes straight out of the Wild West: "Wanted dead or alive." Bustamante apparently conceived all Rastafarians as outlaws in a Hollywood western who had to be exterminated by any means necessary.

Issuing a death sentence, Bustamante literally turned all Rastafarians into villains. Guilty or innocent, they could no longer expect to enjoy the protection of the law. All Rastafarians were completely demonised and became victims of comprehensive state brutality. How did this come about?

Half a century ago, at about 4 a.m. on 'Holy' Thursday, six bearded men set fire to a gas station in Coral Gardens. They were armed with machetes, guns, bows and arrows. I suppose it was cowboys and Indians, Jamrock style. The leader was Rudolph 'Franco' Franklyn, who had a big grievance against the owner of the gas station, Ken Douglas.

Franklyn and several other bearded men had long been squatting on land in Coral Gardens. They lived in relative peace until the land was sold to Douglas. Naturally, the new owner asserted his right to the property and attempted to drive the squatters off the land. As is often the case, the squatters refused to budge.

During one of several attempts at eviction, Franklyn was shot by the police. He survived but was told by a medical doctor that he would die sooner rather than later from a bullet lodged in his body. Determined to take revenge on his assailants, Franklyn sought allies to launch his counter-attack.

DREADLOCKS AND COMBSOME

At the time, there were two groups of Rastafarians living in MoBay: the dreadlocks and the combsome. The dreadlocks lived on Railway Lane and the combsome squatted in Coral Gardens. Franklyn irrationally proposed that both groups of Rastas join forces to burn down Montego Bay. The dreadlocks rejected the scheme on the basis that Rastas defend 'peace and love'.

Franklyn, who seemed to subscribe to the philosophy "I don't give a damn, I done dead already", pressed along with his plans. Instead of burning down all of MoBay, he settled for Douglas' gas station, an obviously flammable target.

203

On the morning of the attack, there was only one attendant at the station, Mr. George Plummer, who fled for his life to the nearby Edgewater Inn Motel. He, clearly, had no shares in the company. A Mr Marsh, who was at the motel, foolishly ventured out to investigate the matter. In a most unfortunate turn of affairs, he was murdered. By midday, seven others lost their lives, including Franklyn.

According to a Gleaner report published on April 13, 1963, "The Montego Bay Fire Brigade had responded to the fire alert at 4:53 a.m. from the house of Dr Carol Delisser. The blaze at the gas station was brought under control after 5 a.m. led by Supt Sydney Burke, who joined the police squad that rushed up from Montego Bay under Inspector Fisher. Five vehicles, including two civilians, started into the hills after the Rastafarian gang. Among those chasing the gang was Mr. Causwell, who was on his way to Kingston but decided to give some help to the chase.

"They drove through two miles of rough terrain from the ruins of Rose Hall Great House. The search party ran into the gang or rather ran into an ambush. The bearded men attacked from an overhanging cliff above. In the fight which ensued, two of the gang were shot to death and Corporal Melbourne and Mr Causwell were cut down. By then, it was discovered later that Headman Fowler had been already cut down about a mile from his home on Tryall Farm."

The day's gruesome events became known as 'the Coral Gardens Incident'. But this was much more than an isolated 'incident'. Franklyn's murderous rampage was a sign of the fundamental inequities of Jamaican society. Landlessness is a recurring a problem which has never been properly addressed by successive pre- and post-Independence governments.

WINSTON CHURCHILL'S CIGARS

The response of Bustamante's government to the terrible actions of six bearded men was brutally excessive: "Bring in all Rastas, dead or alive!" Why should all Rastafarians be exterminated because of the actions of six men, especially since the ringleader had already been killed? Bustamante's irrational call signified much more than a need to restore the peace. The Coral Gardens 'Incident' was a chilling episode in a long history of state violence against Rastafari.

In 1954, under the premiership of Bustamante, a major Rastafarian encampment, Pinnacle, was burnt down. The camp was located in St Jago Hills, close to Sligoville. Pinnacle was a productive agricultural hub, yielding rich crops such as cassava, peas, corn and, of course, ganja. Maintaining African traditions of collective labour, Pinnacle flourished under the leadership of Leonard Howell.

French journalist Hélène Lee, author of The First Rasta: Leonard Howell and the Rise of Rastafarianism, published in 2004, proposes that Howell was the first Jamaican 'don' in the best possible sense of that word. He was a don in the British sense of a university professor. Howell was a Garveyite who valued scholarship.

204

He was also a charismatic community leader who gave hope to landless Rastafari who left Kingston's concrete jungle for the hills of St Catherine. Pinnacle comprised approximately 5,000 acres, even though Howell owned only a conservative estimate of 150 acres and, possibly, up to 400.

According to anecdotal evidence, much of the ganja produced at Pinnacle found its way to the warfront during the Second European War. Ganja was seen as therapy for the troops. It was even rumoured that Winston Churchill's famous cigars contained much more than tobacco. In 1953, Churchill visited Jamaica, staying at the Tower Isle hotel. Was there any connection between his visit and the destruction of Pinnacle? I leave the answer to conspiracy theorists.

Carolyn Cooper is a professor of literary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Visit her bilingual blog at http://carolynjoycooper.wordpress.com [1]. Email feedback to [email protected] [2] and [email protected] [3].

Source URL: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20130407/cleisure/cleisure3.html

Links [1] http://carolynjoycooper.wordpress.com [2] mailto:[email protected] [3] mailto:[email protected]

205

Rasta fighting to preserve Pinnacle's heritage Published: Sunday | February 2, 2014 | 12:00 AM

A section of the ruins of Leonard P. Howell's great house at The Pinnacle in St Catherine. The first Rastafarian village, established by Leonard P. Howell, was completely destroyed by the local militia in 1953.-Photos by Paul H. Williams • Paul H. Williams, Sunday Gleaner Writer

After years of the Rastafari movement in Jamaica lobbying with the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT) for national monument status for The Pinnacle, located at Sligoville, St Catherine, only one lot was declared in September last year after the close of legal arguments in the St Catherine Resident Magistrate's Court.

Pinnacle is the first Rastafarian village in Jamaica and was set up by Leonard P. Howell in 1940. The declaration of only Lot 199 for national monument protection, however, is a drop in the bucket for the Rastafarian community as they want ownership and protection of six lots, the entire property, preferably.

On November 13, 2013, Resident Magistrate Vashti Chatoor ruled that Lot 199 at Pinnacle legally belongs to St Jago Hills Development Company Limited. It consists of the ruins of the cut-stone great house where Leonard Howell lived and the ruins of a water tank which was part of Howell's community at Pinnacle. It does not include the Nyahbinghi Tabernacle at Pinnacle.

Private properties may be declared national monuments.

ONLY ONE LOT PROTECTED

Prior to the JNHT's declaration, the Rastafarian community said six lots, including the bakery, grave sites, and other sites of historical value at Pinnacle, were identified as suitable for national monument protection. The JNHT, the Rastafari community claimed, agreed to declare those six lots as national monuments. However, after the 2012 change of government, the JNHT board also changed, and the JNHT declared only one lot for national monument protection.

206

Michael Matthews has been associated with The Pinnacle since he was a child. Last Friday, he was cooking 'sip' for the gathering at The Pinnacle, where the Rastafari community is maintaining a presence to protect Rastafari heritage, and Leonard P. Howell's legacy.

The JNHT falls under the culture portfolio.

The JNHT's declaration of Lot 199 as a national monument does not change the ownership of the land at Pinnacle or the rights of St Jago Hills Development Company over Pinnacle. It, however, prevents St Jago Hills Development Company from disturbing or destroying the protected national monuments.

"We, therefore, need to have those additional lots urgently declared by JNHT as national monuments to prevent the St Jago Hills Development Company from further construction and destruction of Rastafari heritage," a legal spokesman for the Rastafari community told The Sunday Gleaner.

A housing development has already been built up by the paper title owners at Pinnacle. The ongoing construction, the Rastafarians said, threatens the graves of many Howellites, including the wife of Leonard Howell, as well as the homes of many surviving Howellite families and ultimately original ancestral home of the Rastafari community.

MONUMENTS IN DANGER

A Rastafari tabernacle built many years ago at Pinnacle, the venue for annual celebrations in honour of Leonard P. Howell, is also in jeopardy of being lost forever. The Rastafari community is, therefore, seeking ownership and control over the undeveloped lands of Pinnacle, while reserving the right to pursue reclamation of the entire property through litigation if necessary.

The Rastafari community said in the 1990s, it had approached then Prime Minister P.J. Patterson with hopes of a government acquisition of the lands at Pinnacle for and on behalf of the Rastafari community. Yet, despite several discussions over several years with several successive governments, they are saying no land at Pinnacle has been acquired for and on behalf of the Rastafari community. Despite the JNHT's declaration, they say, the Government has not made any move to acquire the lands.

About a month ago, the community met with Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller and, last Tuesday, there was a march to the Office of the Prime Minister to deliver letters outlining the issues to the prime minister and other members of parliament. The community met with a committee set up by the prime minister.

After that meeting, Dahlia Harris, principal director of culture in the Ministry of Youth and Culture, said dialogue would continue "in an atmosphere of mutual respect for the rights, interests, and concerns of all the stakeholders".

207

Said Harris in a statement: "The dialogue on the issues related to Pinnacle is being coordinated by the committee established by the prime minister, which includes Ambassador Burchell Whiteman, Professor Rupert Lewis, and Judith Wedderburn."

She added: "The Ministry of Youth and Culture, which has portfolio responsibility for all cultural issues, as well as the agencies of the ministry, will continue to carry out the roles of facilitator of, and participants in, the discussions."

Harris said the developers were sensitive to the cultural issues related to the significance of Pinnacle to the Rastafari faith and were open to negotiations regarding further development/construction, and that there would be no construction on the five lots adjoining the great house.

"Further inclusive dialogue is to take place regarding the use of the site of the great house at Pinnacle, which has been designated by the JNHT as a national heritage site (and) further research, in consultation with the Millennium Council of Rastafari, the Leonard P. Howell Foundation and the Rastafari Youth Initiative will be undertaken to determine the existence of other sacred sites with a view to preventing any possible desecration," she said.

Harris added: "Further meetings are to be scheduled to continue the discussions with a view to arriving at the amicable resolution of the issues." Source URL: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20140202/news/news1.html

208

We are sorry- Gov't apologises to Rastas for Coral Gardens incident Published: Wednesday | April 5, 2017 | 12:00 AM Jason Cross

Patrick Planter Members of the Rastafari communtiy tried to march on Jamaica House yesterday to register yet another protest against the 1963 Coral Gardens incident of their brethrens. The police prevented them from doing so, but their placards tell all.

The long-awaited apology from the Government to the residents of Coral Gardens, particularly the Rastafari community, for the atrocities meted out to them more than half a century ago, has finally come, accompanied with a bit of compensation.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness officially apologised to the Rastafari community in Parliament yesterday and declared that the Government would be ensuring a similar occurrence does not happen.

"I am happy to have finally reached the point where we can discuss concrete and tangible actions, which ease some of the heavy burdens that survivors and the community had faced. Today, without equivocation, we apologise for what occurred in Coral Gardens. We express regret and sorrow for this chapter in our national life that was characterised by brutality, injustice and repression. (It) was wrong and should never be repeated," the prime minister stressed.

Holness yesterday outlined a number of tasks that the Government will follow through on to compensate the Rastafari community for the incident.

"We have taken a symbolic yet courageous and pivotal move, which means that we can face the future with renewed hope. While we know this (apology) cannot erase the brutality, oppression and injustice, I am comforted by the willingness of the Rastafari Coral Gardens Benevolent Society to keep the dialogue going," he said.

Holness listed a number of benefits that those who were affected will receive.

- The public defender will be asked to continue the work her office started in finding survivors and gathering important information on them and their families. She will be collaborating with the Rastafari Coral Gardens Benevolent Society and the member of parliament for the area to make that possible.

209

Patrick Planter Members of the Rastafari community making their way to Jamaica House yesterday were prevented by the police from doing so. Here Superintendent Courtney Coubrie from the Traffic Division interacts with some of them.

- A trust fund of no less than J$10 million is to be made available to them and their families.

- Six lots at Pinnacle will become designated protected heritage sites, which will also include a Rastafari Village.

Shortly before Holness' apology, members of the Rastafari community attempted to march in protest on Jamaica House. The police said that they would not be allowed within 200m of the premises, but that did not halt the determined group.

They were adamant, however, that yesterday's march would have been the last, as they would resort to international law for help.

"We are here today to agitate for compensation for what the Government gwaan with in 1963. We have been meeting with them for several months now, and this Government formed an ad hoc committee of Parliament to meet with I and I and they met with I and I one time," member of the Rastafari Coral Gardens Benevolent Society, Ras Chalwa, told The Gleaner yesterday, before the apology.

"The proposal is to have compensation for the actual victims and also the community because they attacked the entire community in 1963. The public defender did a report in 2015 and stated that the Government breached several of the constitutional rights of Rastafari," he said.

An April 1963 encounter with the police in Coral Gardens left eight Rastafarians dead. Several were beaten, jailed and had their locks cut off.

Source URL: http://jamaica-gleaner.com/article/lead-stories/20170405/we-are-sorry-govt-apologises-rastas-coral-gardens-incident

210

APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT

Semi-Structured Interviews

Informed Consent – Local Stakeholders, Community Residents and Coffee Farmers

I am conducting a study about stakeholder participation in environmental regulation monitoring and enforcement. Your home/farm is located in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica and you are therefore invited to be a part of this study. Background: The purpose of this study is to find out which environmental regulations impact you most, whether you comply with them and obtain your views as to whether or not you feel like an important part of the environmental protection process. I want to know more about: • Environmental regulations that you find difficult/hard to comply with; • Environmental issues in the Blue Mountain that impact you most; • How NEPA and other governmental regulators can better ensure compliance with environmental protection initiatives. From this study, I hope to establish the feasibility of bottom-up environmental protection regulations and initiatives in the Blue Mountains to help community members, farmers and the environment. Tameka Samuels-Jones, with whom you are speaking, is doing this research as a part of a Phd program at the University of Florida. Procedures: If you agree to be a part of this research, I would interview you for 30 minutes to an hour. I would not request any identification information from you, nor would you be tape recorded in any way. We can do this interview in your home, on your farm or at a mutually convenient location. Risks and benefits: Benefits of the study include sharing your experiences which may impact how environmental regulations are implemented and enforced in your community. To protect your identity, I will not ask your name or for any other information that would make you identifiable. Participation is voluntary: You do not have to participate in this study. You can decline. If you agree to be in this study and later decide not to continue, you can leave the study at any time. Confidentiality: Only I, Tameka Samuels-Jones, will have access to information that you provide from this interview. Contacts and Questions: Please ask any questions you have now or in the future. You may reach me at [email protected] ,locally at 876-928-6103 or overseas (after August 1) at 352-316-3946. Do I have your verbal consent?

211

Informed Consent – Regulatory Bodies; Government Officials

I am conducting a study about stakeholder participation in environmental regulation monitoring and enforcement. You were selected to participate because you work at a regulatory body that is mandated to protect the environment in the Blue Mountains of Jamaica. Background: The purpose of this study is to find out which environmental regulations are most enforced in the blue Mountains, the compliance rate and what enforcement and monitoring mechanisms are employed. I am also interested in the extent to which, and the ways in which, community residents are involved in the regulatory process. I want to know more about: • Environmental regulations that you find difficult/hard to enforce; • How monitoring and enforcement for environmental protection in the Blue Mountains is shared among multiple regulators; • How NEPA and other governmental regulators believe they can better ensure compliance with environmental protection initiatives in the Blue Mountains; and • The status of the Protected Area System Master Plan. From this study, I hope to establish the feasibility of bottom-up environmental protection regulations and initiatives in the Blue Mountains to help regulators, community members, farmers and the environment. Tameka Samuels-Jones, with whom you are speaking, is doing this research as a part of a Phd program at the University of Florida. Procedures: If you agree to be a part of this research, I would interview you for 30 minutes to an hour. You do not have to provide any identification information, nor would you be tape recorded in any way. We can do this interview in your office or at a mutually convenient location. Risks and benefits: Benefits of the study include sharing your experiences which may impact how environmental regulations are implemented and enforced in the Blue Mountains. To protect your identity, I will not record your name or any other information that would make you identifiable if you do not wish to provide it. Participation is voluntary: You do not have to participate in this study. You can decline. If you agree to be in this study and later decide not to continue, you can leave the study at any time. Confidentiality: Only I, Tameka Samuels-Jones, will have access to information that you provide from this interview. Contacts and Questions: Please ask any questions you have now or in the future. You may reach me at [email protected] ,locally at 876-928-6103 or overseas (after August 1) at 352-316-3946. Do I have your verbal consent?

212

APPENDIX D NEPA ENFORCEMENT DATA

ID DATE ENFORCEMENT INSTRUMENT PARISH OFFENDER DETAILS OF Breach

971 2012-01-12 Warning Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Factory Illegal discharge of trade effluent into the fall river

Discharge of trade effluent into the environment from 959 2012-03-14 Warning Notice St. Andrew Elvis Holding a pig rearing facility

Breaches of specific conditions 1440 2013-01-04 Breach Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Company Limted 5,6,7,8,,9,18,20,24,25,26,27,28,29 and general condition 9 of permit 2010-02017-Ep00093

Breach of GC 14 and SC 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 1441 2013-01-04 Breach Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Compnay Limted and 14 of licence 2010-02017-EL00025

The direct discharge of untreated trade effluent from 1662 2013-03-01 Enforcement Notice (NRCA) St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Factory the Mavis Bank Coffee Factory into the Fall River at Mavis Bank.

2076 2013-09-11 Warning Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Factory The discharge of trade effluent into the environment Specific conditons 1 & 2 of permit 2010-02017- 2079 2013-09-11 Breach Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Factory EP00093

GC 10, SC 4, SC 5, SC 7, SC 8, SC 9, SC 11, SC 13- 2243 2014-01-06 Notice of Intention to Suspend St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Factory Ltd 15.

The discharge of trade effluent into a mini dam 2671 2014-04-18 Warning Notice St. Andrew Richard Sharpe - Clifton Mount Coffee without an environmental licence.

Breach of specific conditions # 7, # 8, # 11 and # 12. The construction of septic tanks amd reed bed 3194 2015-01-15 Breach Notice St. Andrew Clifton Mount Coffee Estate Limited without an environmental licence. Permit number 2003-02017-EP00161 Breach of G-condition #14 of permit 2010-02017- 3514 2015-04-16 Breach Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee EL00025

Breach of G-condition #14 S-condition # 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 3811 2015-07-02 Breach Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Coffee Factory Ltd 8, 11, 12 & 14 of permit 2010-02017-EL00025

David Wong Operation of a water treatment facility without an 6177 2017-09-11 Warning Letter St. Andrew Managing Director environmental permit Peak Bottling Company Limited Breach of specific conditions # 4, 5,6,12,14 and 15 of 6057 2017-09-19 Breach Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Central Factory 2010-02017-EL00025 Breach of S-condition #3, 4, 10, 11 &12 of 2003- 6289 2017-10-11 Breach Notice St. Andrew Clifton Mount Coffee Estate Ltd 02017-EP00161

Richard Sharpe Breach of general condition #9 and specific condition 6653 2017-11-29 Notice of Intention to Suspend Kingston Clifton Mount Coffee Estate Limited #3,4,8,9,10,11,12 of 2003-02017-EP00161

Construction and operation of a wasterwater Richard Sharpe 6656 2017-11-29 Cessation Order St. Andrew treatment plant and the discharge of trade efluent Clifton Mount Coffee Estate Limited into the environment without a license

Dr Susan Otuokon 6592 2017-12-05 Warning Letter St. Andrew Non compliance with 2015-02017-EP00049 JCDT

David Wong Operation of a wter treatment facility without an EP 6810 2018-01-12 Warning Letter St. Andrew Peak Bottling Company Ltd and EL The construction and operation of a treatement plant 6867 2018-02-01 Warning Notice St. Andrew Stoneliegh Coffee Processors and discharge of trade effluent without an EL

6868 2018-02-01 Breach Notice St. Andrew Stoneleigh Coffee Processors Ltd Breach of SC 4 of 2006-02017-EP00173

The operation aof a agro processing facility without 6869 2018-02-01 Warning Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Factory Ltd an EP

The operation of a waste water treatment facility 6870 2018-02-01 Warning Notice St. Andrew Mavis Bank Coffee Factory Ltd without an EL Peak Bottling Company Limited The operation of a water treatment facility without a 7332 2018-06-21 Cessation Order St. Andrew David Wong(Mng Drtr) permit The construction and operation of a treatement plant 6867 2018-02-01 Warning Notice St. Andrew Stoneliegh Coffee Processors and discharge of trade effluent without an EL 6868 2018-02-01 Breach Notice St. Andrew Stoneleigh Coffee Processors Ltd Breach of SC 4 of 2006-02017-EP00173

213

ID ACTION TAKEN COMPLIANCE COMMENTS

971 Address the breaches and site will be visited in 7 days Non Compliant The activity was still taking place

959 Cease the breach immediately Pending Date Site woukld be revisitd in 30 days to ascertain compliance.

Letter has since been sent in to the CEO from Mavis Bank explaining the breaches and also request a six months time period for 1440 Address the breaces within 14 days Appeal compliance. Matter was discussed and advice given to CEO that we will allow until the end of March to become compliant. Letter has since been sent in to the CEO from Mavis Bank explaining the breaches and also request a six months time period for 1441 Address the breaces within 14 days Appeal compliance. Matter was discussed and advice given to CEO that we will allow until the end of March to become compliant. 1. Cease the discharge within 7 days of the date of this notice. Effective date of notice is 8 March 2013. 2. Remediate the section o f the Fall River which has been directly 1662 affected by the discharge and submit a report on the remediation Complied Site visit condcuted on 26 March 2013 indciated that the actyiviy works to the Manager of Enforcement. continues as there were eveidence of fresh discharge to the river. With 3. Submit to the a the threat of peosecution steps were taken to comply. 2076 cease the activity and the site will be revisited in 7 days Not Assertained

2079 Address the breachs within 21 days Not Assertained

Pending Date. 2243 Notice of intention to suspend Licence Non Compliant Requires a visit to update the file Letter dated June 27, 2014 requesting a meeting to to get into Address the above breaches and compliance the facility in compliance. The letter also indicated thathtey have already contacted 2671 Complied compliance within 14 days. the Agency and also emplyed a consultant to work on the licence process.

A warning letter was served on Coffee Traders dated 23 February 2015 3194 Address the breaches within fourteen (14) days Non Compliant to come into compliance

Notice was served to cease with immediate effect the discharge of No direct discharge was seen but there were evidence of discharge as 3514 the trade effluent into the environment. He was given 14 days in Complied the Fall river was very dark in colour within the vicinity of the factory to an which to come into compliance. approx. 15m down river where it started to become faded. no direct discharge was seen but there were evidence of discharge as Notice was served to address the breaches. They were given 14 3811 Partial Compliance the Fall river was very dark in colour within the vicinity of the factory to an days in which to come into compliance. approx. 15m down river where it started to become faded. Instructed to comply with regulations and acquire relevant permits 6177 and licences. This should be done within 60 calendar days of the effective date 13 September 2017 Instructed to address breach witin 7 days by submitting to the 6057 Non Compliant Authority the relevant reports and standards Notice was served to address the breaches. They were given 30 6289 Not Assertained days in which to come into compliance.

Cease all breaches condusted under the terms of the permit upon 6653 effective date 19 December 2017

6656 Immediately cease the activity as of effective date 4 December 2017

6592 Instructed to cease all activities with immediate effect

Given 30 calendar days fom 22 January 2018 to submit an 6810 application

6867 Given 14 days to submit an application

6868 Given 14 days to submit an application Status: processing continues, application has been submitted, Mr. 6869 Given 14 days to submit an application Complied Christopher Johnson from APB visited the site also to assess re: application. Given 14 days to submit requisit info for further processing of 6870 applicaion

7332 Cease operation by 21 June 2018

6867 Given 14 days to submit an application 6868 Given 14 days to submit an application

214

APPENDIX E JCDT DELEGATION INSTRUMENT

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

LIST OF REFERENCES

Agrawal, Arun. 2002. “Common Resources and Institutional Sustainability.” In The Drama of the Commons, edited by Elke Ostrom, Elinor; Dietz, Thomas; Dolsak, Nives; stern, Paul; Stonich, Susan and Weber, 41–85.

Akbulut, Bengi, and Ceren Soylu. 2012. “An Inquiry into Power and Participatory Natural Resource Management.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 36 (5): 1143–62.

Akella, Anita Sundari, and James B Cannon. 2017. “Strengthening the Weakest Links: Strategies for Improving the Enforcement of Environmental Laws Globally.” In Transnational Environmental Crime, 459–92. Routledge.

Allott, Antony N. 1980. “The Limits of Law.”

Andersson, Krister P, and Elinor Ostrom. 2008. “Analyzing Decentralized Resource Regimes from a Polycentric Perspective.” Policy Sciences Vol. - 41, no. 1: 71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6.

Barima, Kofi Boukman. 2017. “Obeah to Rastafari: Jamaica as a Colony of Ridicule, Oppression and Violence, 1865-1939.” Journal of Pan African Studies Vol. - 10, no. 1: 163.

Basran, G S, and David A Hay. 1988. Political Economy of Agriculture in Western Canada. Garamond Press.

Becker, Emily. 2015. “The Power of Social Movements and the Limits of Pluralism: Tracing Rastafarianism and Indigenous Resurgence through Commonwealth Caribbean Law and Culture Null [Article].” International Journal of Legal Information Vol.- 43. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edshol&AN=hein.journals.ijli43.26&site=eds-live.

Bellamy, F J, and L M Magdoff. 1998. “Depletion of Soil Fertility: Relevance for Today’s Agriculture.”

Berke, Philip R, and Timothy Beatley. 1995. “Sustaining Jamaica’s Forests: The Protected Areas Resource Conservation Project.” Environmental Management 19 (4): 527.

Besson, Jean. 2016. Transformations of Freedom in the Land of the Maroons : Creolization in the Cockpits, Jamaica. Kingston [Jamaica] : Ian Randle Publishers, 2016.

Bilby, Kenneth. 2005. True-Born Maroons. University Press of Florida.

224

Bohannan, Paul. 1965. “The Differing Realms of the Law.” American Anthropologist VO - 67, no. 6: 33. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.668838&site=eds-live.

Braithwaite, John. 2011. “The Essence of Responsive Regulation.” UBCL Rev. 44: 475.

Bruner, Aaron G, Raymond E Gullison, Richard E Rice, and Gustavo A B da Fonseca. 2001. “Effectiveness of Parks in Protecting Tropical Biodiversity.” Science Vol. - 291, no. 5501: 125. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.3082189&site=eds-live.

Buttel, Frederick H, and Louis E Swanson. 1986. “Soil and Water Conservation: A Farm Structural and Public Policy Context.”

Caserta, Salvatotre, and Mikael Madsen. 2016. “Between Community Law and Common Law: The Rise of the Caribbean Court of Justice at the Intersection of Regional Integration and Post-Colonial Legacies.” Law & Contemporary Problems 79 (1): 89–115.

Chai, Shauna-Lee, Edmund Tanner, and Kurt McLaren. 2009. “High Rates of Forest Clearance and Fragmentation Pre-and Post-National Park Establishment: The Case of a Jamaican Montane Rainforest.” Biological Conservation 142 (11): 2484–92.

Chevannes, Barry. 1994. Rastafari: Roots and Ideology. Syracuse University Press.

Cinner, Joshua E, and Shankar Aswani. 2007. “Integrating Customary Management into Marine Conservation.” Biological Conservation 140 (3–4): 201–16.

Colding, Johan, and Carl Folke. 2001. “Social Taboos:‘Invisible’ Systems of Local Resource Management and Biological Conservation.” Ecological Applications 11 (2): 584–600.

Cox, Michael, Sergio Villamayor-Tomas, and Yasha Hartberg. 2014. “The Role of Religion in Community-Based Natural Resource Management.” World Development 54: 46–55.

Delville, Philippe Lavigne. 2000. “Harmonising Formal Law and Customary Land Rights in French-Speaking West Africa.” Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa., 97–122.

Diver, Sibyl. 2016. “Co-Management as a Catalyst: Pathways to Post-Colonial Forestry in the Klamath Basin, California.” Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal Vol. - 44, no. 5: 533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-016-9851-8.

225

Fitzpatrick, Daniel. 2005. “‘Best Practice’ Options for the Legal Recognition of Customary Tenure.” Development & Change 36 (3): 449–75.

Forrest, Craig, and Jennifer Corrin. 2013. “Legal Pluralism in the Pacific: Solomon Island’s World War II Heritage.” International Journal of Cultural Property Vol- 20. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.injculpy20.5&site=eds- live.

Forsyth, Miranda. 2009. A Bird That Flies with Two Wings: Kastom and State Justice Systems in Vanuatu. ANU E Press.

———. 2013. “How Can the Theory of Legal Pluralism Assist the Traditional Knowledge Debate?” Intersections: Gender and Sexuality in Asia and the Pacific 13.

Fuentes-George, Kemi. 2016. Between Preservation and Exploitation: Transnational Advocacy Networks and Conservation in Developing Countries. MIT Press.

Fuller, Harcourt, and Jada Benn Torres. 2018. “Investigating the ‘Taíno’ Ancestry of the Jamaican Maroons: A New Genetic (DNA), Historical, and Multidisciplinary Analysis and Case Study of the Accompong Town Maroons.” Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies/Revue Canadienne Des Études Latino- Américaines et Caraïbes 43 (1): 47–78.

Geisinger, Alex. 1999. “Sustainable Development and the Domination of Nature: Spreading the Seed of the Western Ideology of Nature.” BC Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 27: 43.

Gerten, Dieter, and Sigurd Bergmann. 2012. “Facing the Human Faces of Climate Change.” Religion in Environmental and Climate Change: Suffering, Values, Lifestyles, 3–15.

Gore, Meredith L. 2017. Conservation Criminology. Chichester, West Sussex : John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2017. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=cat04364a&AN=ufl.PDA002976174&site=eds-live.

Gover, Kirsty. 2008. “Legal Pluralism and State-Indigenous Relations in Western Settler Societies.” Citeseer.

Green, Kathryn E, and Jens Friis Lund. 2015. “The Politics of Expertise in Participatory Forestry: A Case from Tanzania.” Forest Policy and Economics 60 (Participatory forestry: professionalization, power and science): 27–34.

Griffiths, John. 1986. “What Is Legal Pluralism?” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 18 (24): 1–55.

226

Grote, Ulrike, and Frank Neubacher. 2016. “Rural Crime in Developing Countries: Theoretical Framework, Empirical Findings, Research Needs.”

Guest, Greg, Arwen Bunce, and Laura Johnson. n.d. “How Many Interviews Are Enough? An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability.” Field Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903.

Hajjar, Reem, Robert A Kozak, Hosny El-Lakany, and John L Innes. 2013. “Community Forests for Forest Communities: Integrating Community-Defined Goals and Practices in the Design of Forestry Initiatives.” Land Use Policy 34: 158–67.

Hassanein, Neva, and Jack R Kloppenburg Jr. 1995. “Where the Grass Grows Again: Knowledge Exchange in the Sustainable Agriculture Movement 1.” Rural Sociology 60 (4): 721–40.

Hitzhusen, Gregory E, and Mary Evelyn Tucker. 2013. “The Potential of Religion for Earth Stewardship.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11 (7): 368–76.

Huisman, Wim, and Judith Van Erp. 2013. “Opportunities for Environmental Crime: A Test of Situational Crime Prevention Theory [Article].” British Journal of Criminology Vol. - 53. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=edshol&AN=edshol.hein.journals.bjcrim53.75&site=eds- live.

Hyslop, Eric Joseph, and Damian Arjan Nesbeth. n.d. “The Effects of Bauxite/Alumina Waste on the Composition of the Macroinvertebrate Community of the Rio Cobre, a Major River in Jamaica.” Biota Neotropica. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edswsc&AN=000308254400004&site=eds-live.

Keeley, James, and Ian Scoones. 2000. “Knowledge, Power and Politics: The Environmental Policy-Making Process in Ethiopia.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 38 (1): 89–120.

Kelley, Donald R, Kenneth R Stunkel, and Richard R Wescott. 1976. “Economic Superpowers and the Environment: The United States, the Soviet Union, and Japan.”

Kleinhans, Martha-Marie, and Roderick A Macdonald. 1997. “What Is a Critical Legal Pluralism.” Canadian Journal of Law and Society Vol. - 12.

Koning, Niek, and Eric Smaling. 2005. “Environmental Crisis or ‘Lie of the Land’? The Debate on Soil Degradation in Africa.” Land Use Policy 22 (1): 3–11.

Lee, Hélène. 2003. The First Rasta: Leonard Howell and the Rise of Rastafarianism. Chicago Review Press.

227

Lele, Sharachchandra M. 1991. “Sustainable Development: A Critical Review.” World Development 19 (6): 607–21.

Lynch, Michael J, Paul B Stretesky, and Michael A Long. 2018. “Situational Crime Prevention and the Ecological Regulation of Green Crime: A Review and Discussion.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218789080.

M’Gonigle, Michael. 2008. “Green Legal Theory.” Ökologisches Wirtschaften- Fachzeitschrift 23 (4).

Madrilejo, Nicole, Holden Lombard, and Jada Benn Torres. 2015. “Origins of Marronage: Mitochondrial Lineages of Jamaica’s Accompong Town Maroons.” American Journal of Human Biology 27 (3): 432.

Magraw, Daniel Barstow. 1990. “Legal Treatment of Developing Countries: Differential, Contextual, and Absolute Norms.” Colo. J. Int’l Envtl. L. & Pol’y 1: 69.

Mayda, Jaro. 1984. “Environmental Legislation in Developing Countries: Some Parameters and Constraints.” Ecology Law Quarterly 12 (1): 997. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edb&AN=85781945&site=eds-live.

Merry, Sally Engle. 2013. “Legal Pluralism in Practice.” McGill Law Journal Vol. - 59, no. 1: 1. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.352231744&site=eds-live.

Morgan, Bronwen, and Karen Yeung. 2007. An Introduction to Law and Regulation: Text and Materials. Cambridge University Press.

Morrison, Andrew. 2003. “‘Dancing with Postcolonial Theory.’” Norsk Medietidsskrift 10 (02): 28–56.

Neiman, Max. 1980. “The Virtues of Heavy‐Handedness in Government.” Law & Policy 2 (1): 11–34.

O’Toole, Gavin. 2014. Environmental Politics in Latin America and the Caribbean. Environmental Politics in Latin America and the Caribbean. Liverpool Latin American Textbooks. Liverpool : Liverpool University Press, 2014. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=cat04364a&AN=ufl.033117783&site=eds-live.

Olsson, Per, Carl Folke, and Fikret Berkes. 2004. “Adaptive Comanagement for Building Resilience in Social–ecological Systems.” Environmental Management 34 (1): 75–90.

228

Ostrom, Elinor. 2010. “Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change.” Global Environmental Change 20 (20th Anniversary Special Issue): 550–57.

Padgett, Deborah K. 1998. “Does the Glove Really Fit? Qualitative Research and Clinical Social Work Practice.” Social Work 43 (4): 373–81.

Palomera, Jaime, and Theodora Vetta. 2016. “Moral Economy: Rethinking a Radical Concept.” Anthropological Theory 16 (4): 413–32.

Parent, Diane. 1996. “The Transformation of Work on the Family Farm.” Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d’agroeconomie 44 (4): 421–34.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2015. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods : Integrating Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE Publications, Inc., [2015]. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=cat04364a&AN=ufl.033001810&site=eds-live.

Pimentel, David. 2010. “Can Indigenous Justice Survive?: Legal Pluralism and the Rule of Law.” Harvard International Review Vol. - 32, no. 2: 32.

Prez, Paula De. 2000. “Excuses, Excuses: The Ritual Trivialisation of Environmental Prosecutions.” Journal of Environmental Law 12 (1): 65–78.

Rajan, Gita, and Radhika Mohanram. 1995. Postcolonial Discourse and Changing Cultural Contexts: Theory and Criticism. Vol. 64. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Reed, David. 2009. Structural Adjustment, the Environment, and Sustainable Development. [Electronic Resource]. Earthscan Library Collection. London ; Sterling, Va. : Earthscan, 2009. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=cat04364a&AN=ufl.PDA002274922&site=eds-live.

Rées, Helena Du. 2001. “Can Criminal Law Protect the Environment?” Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 2 (2): 109–26.

Shah, Prakash. 2005. Legal Pluralism in Conflict: Coping with Cultural Diversity in Law. Psychology Press.

Shandra, John M, Eran Shor, and Bruce London. 2008. “Debt, Structural Adjustment, and Organic Water Pollution: A Cross-National Analysis.” Organization & Environment Vol. - 21, no. 1: 38. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.26162341&site=eds-live.

229

Starr, June, and Jane Fishburne Collier. 1989. History and Power in the Study of Law : New Directions in Legal Anthropology. Anthropology of Contemporary Issues. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 1989. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=cat04364a&AN=ufl.021846865&site=eds-live.

Stuligross, David. 1999. “The Political Economy of Environmental Regulation in India.” Pacific Affairs, 392–406.

Tamanaha, Miranada. 2000. “A Non-Essentialist Version of Legal Pluralism.” Journal of Law and Society Vol. - 27.

Tarter, Andrew. 2015. “Trees in Vodou: An Arbori-Cultural Exploration.” Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature & Culture 9 (1): 87–112. http://10.0.6.22/jsrnc.v9i1.19582.

Thomas-Hope, Elizabeth M. 2013. Environmental Management in the Caribbean : Policy and Practice. Mona, Kingston, Jamaica : The University of the West Indies Press, 2013. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=cat04364a&AN=ufl.032862601&site=eds-live.

Thompson, Edward Palmer. 2016. The Making of the English Working Class. Open Road Media.

Twining, William. 2010. “Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective.” Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law Vol. - 20, no. 3: 473. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &AuthType=ip,uid&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.232394939&site=eds-live.

Vanclay, Frank. 2004. “Social Principles for Agricultural Extension to Assist in the Promotion of Natural Resource Management.” Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44 (3): 213–22.

Vaughan, Mehana Blaich, Barton Thompson, and Adam L Ayers. 2017. “Pāwehe Ke Kai a‘o Hā‘ena: Creating State Law Based on Customary Indigenous Norms of Coastal Management.” Society & Natural Resources 30 (1): 31–46.

Zarandona, José Antonio González. 2015. “Heritage as a Cultural Measure in a Postcolonial Setting.” In Making Culture Count, 173–90. Springer.

Ziegler, Katja S. 2007. “Cultural Heritage and Human Rights.”

Zips, Werner. 1996. “Laws in Competition: Traditional Maroon Authorities within Legal Pluralism in Jamaica.” The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law 28 (37– 38): 279–305.

230

Zips, Werner, and Werner Zips. 2006. Rastafari : A Universal Philosophy in the Third Millennium. Kingston, Jamaica : Ian Randle, 2006. http://lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true &db=cat04364a&AN=ufl.020492828&site=eds-live.

231

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Tameka Samuels-Jones submitted this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Philosophy from the Department of Sociology and

Criminology & Law at the University of Florida. Her research interests include environmental sociology, regulatory law and green crime. Tameka is a founding member of the University of Florida’s Environmental Crime & Justice Working

Group and has published in Social Sciences Quarterly and Environmental

Sociology. Tameka is a recipient of the American Society of Criminology's 2018 Ruth

D. Peterson Fellowship for Racial & Ethnic Diversity. She graduated from the University of Florida in 2019.

232