Technical Report Prepared by Professor Dale Webber and Dr. Claudel Noel Centre for Environmental Management September 2013
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES, MONA CAMPUS CENTRE FOR ENVIRONRMENTAL MANAGEMENT PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS ON DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE COCKPIT COUNTRY Technical Report Prepared by Professor Dale Webber and Dr. Claudel Noel Centre for Environmental Management September 2013 FUNDED BY i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The main goal of this project was to initiate, manage and facilitate a public consultation process on defining the boundary of the Cockpit Country. The research team collected the views and opinions of the various stakeholders regarding the UWI proposed boundary in relation to other proposed boundaries which were referred by the UWI research team. In addition, a new boundary proposed for the Cockpit Country by relevant Governmental authorities and stakeholders in 2009 as well as previous proposed boundaries that were inadvertently omitted by the UWI research team were included in the discussion. A mixed methodology was used combining qualitative and quantitative tools and instruments of empirical data collection. However, the public consultation primarily fell within the qualitative methodological paradigm. A total of 18 community public consultation meetings were organised within the Cockpit Country. Some neighbouring communities were joined together instead of holding a separate meeting in each district or community. A flexible questionnaire was administered to few members of each community in order to complement the qualitative information that was collected during the public consultation meetings. THREE Town Hall meetings outside the Cockpit Country were held in Santa Cruz, Montego Bay, and Kingston. The research team also conducted a number of structured and unstructured interviews with Ministries and Governmental agencies, key stakeholders from the Cockpit Country Stakeholders’ Group, other Non-Governmental Organisations, experts from the academic community and few private land owners. An interview guide was sent to each organisation prior to the interviews. Content analysis was used to analyse the views and opinions of the stakeholders. Text boxes were created when appropriate to report the data. Results Most people living within the Cockpit Country would like it to be declared and designated as a protected area and a national park, an ecotourism site and a World Heritage Site. There is vehement opposition to bauxite mining and limestone quarrying within the Cockpit Country. Some stakeholders believed that geology and geomorphology are foundational factors in identifying the Cockpit Country. However, these factors could not be the only parameters to take into account when defining the boundary of the Cockpit Country. There is an agreement that economic opportunities for the local communities and the nation at large should be part of the Cockpit Country boundary discussion. Several representatives from the Governmental agencies support a balanced approach between the local economy and the national interest. There is full agreement that the defined boundary of the Cockpit Country should ensure watershed protection and the protection of the natural resources and the ecosystems. ii Land tenure (Private versus Crown) should be addressed and incentives should be provided to Private land owners depending on the future of the Cockpit Country. Discussions should take place with the Accompong Maroon Council in order to resolve issues related to ownership rights, conservation and management of the natural resources. There are conflicts between the stakeholders about the use of the Cockpit Country’s natural resources. Some stakeholders would like controlled use of the natural resources and amenities by establishing new practices such as sustainable farming, improved land use patterns, ecotourism activities, etc... Other stakeholders would like the natural resources to remain undisturbed. There are conflicting views in terms of exploration of existing natural resources whether for economic opportunities, simple curiosity or scientific research. The high level of scepticism is associated with the issue of lack of trust between the stakeholders and the motives for the enquiry. Some stakeholders are of the view that exploration will always lead to exploitation and exploitation to devastation of the existing natural resources and endemic species of fauna and flora. There is strong agreement that the Forest Reserve should not be touched at any cost as a result of its level of endemism, and biodiversity as well as its significance to watershed protection, climate change and other ecosystem services. There is also agreement that more research should be conducted in order to explore the archaeological and historical treasures of the Cockpit Country. There are full agreement on declaring the Cockpit Country a Protected Area and National Park. All stakeholders are of the view that the Jamaica National Heritage Trust (JNHT) should seek a nomination of World Heritage site for the Cockpit Country. Recommendations 1. There is an urgent need to develop a long vision for the Cockpit Country and evaluate the true cost of ecosystem services provided by the Cockpit Country for Jamaica and the World vis-à-vis the permanent removal of mineral resources under current technological conditions. 2. One of the biggest contributions of the Cockpit Country to the national economy is the provision of potable water. The Water Resource Authority insisted that 40% of water production in Jamaica is supplied by the Cockpit Country aquifer (WRA, 2004). The tourism sector in western Jamaica greatly benefits from the ecological services provided by the Cockpit Country aquifer in terms of water supply and water quality. The Cockpit Country Forest plays a critical role in sustaining water security in Jamaica. 3. The Government of Jamaica should not authorise any form of mining and quarrying activity within the Cockpit Country as the level of emotion is too high and the level of opposition and resistance by community members and leaders, community-based organisations, Non-governmental and civil society organisations, some governmental agencies and members of the academic community may not provide enough guarantee and confidence for potential investors. iii 4. The Cockpit Country deserves some form of legal protection. The declaration of a protected area and national park is the first step toward the ultimate goal, which is the nomination of the Cockpit Country as a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 5. The official boundary for the Cockpit Country should be comprised of a Core, a Transition Zone and an Outer Boundary. 6. The Core of the Cockpit Country boundary should be primarily based on the contiguous geological, geomorphological and biological parameters. The Core must be the centre of the best and primary forest within the Cockpit Country. 7. The 2005 Parris Lyew-Ayee Jr. proposed boundary, which also enclosed the current forest reserve can stand as a Core as it fits the above characteristics. The 2005 Parris Lyew-Ayee Jr. proposed boundary is suggested as the Core of the boundary. 8. The Transition Zone of the boundary must be legally protected as well. However, the transition zone will require fewer restrictions because it includes human settlement areas, agricultural lands, and other types of forest reserve, where some regulated anthropogenic activities take place. However, there should be a level of control in order to protect the Core. There should be a high level of zoning. Alternative livelihood strategies have to be sought if current economic activities can threaten the sustainability of the Core. The Cockpit Country NEGAR Add-on boundary is suggested as the Transition zone of the boundary. 9. The outer boundary should be legally protected. It can also be considered as a buffer zone depending on the arrangements as indicated by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) or UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention. There may be fewer restrictions in this zone. The outer boundary may include other forest reserves or special areas that need to be placed under stringent protection and conservation measures. The boundary proposed by the Cockpit Country Stakeholders’ Group is suggested as the outer boundary. 10. A Board of Management or Stakeholders’ Oversight Committee should be formed to oversee the management of the Cockpit Country Protected Area or National Park. The Board/Committee should comprise representatives from governmental agencies, the Maroon Council, non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations, the business community and educational institutions. The Board/Committee should report to the Cabinet through the Ministry of Water, Land, Environment and Climate Change. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Centre for Environmental Management is grateful to the Forest Conservation Fund (FCF) for providing a grant to complete the Public Consultation on Defining the Boundaries of the Cockpit Country. We are also grateful to representatives from numerous Ministries and Governmental Agencies, Non-Governmental and Community-based Organisations, Local Forest Management Committees, Private land owners and members of the academic community who accepted to meet with us or fill out the interview guide. We are thankful to members of the communities within and outside the Cockpit Country who participated in the public consultation exercise. These individuals made a significant contribution to this report through the spirited and enlightening discussions during the 18 community public consultation