I had the opportunity to hear you speak at the public consultation regarding the development of Winnifred Beach. I would like to take this opportunity to touch on several of the the key themes and topics that were raised. The central theme you presented was one of prosperity, the premise that further development of Winnifred Beach would lead to greater opportunity for local residents. You spoke tantalizingly of the GDP of the wealthiest industrialized countries, and gave the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a dismal counterexample. You compared the irreplaceable natural assets of Portland area to the precious minerals of the DRC. Let us take a moment and sit with this comparison.
The exploitation of the resources of the DRC has in fact generated an enormous amount of wealth: for mining companies, foreign investors, global corporations who rely on these materials, and a small group of government officials and bureaucrats who have enriched themselves along the way. As you pointed out, the one group who has not benefited are the actual people of the DRC, who remain some of the poorest in the world. How different the story and prosperity of the citizens of DRC might have been had they been able to define the process of development.
I believe the moral here is that development and extraction of precious natural resources does not necessarily or automatically translate into greater prosperity for the local community. Even though it ‘created jobs’, clearly these ‘jobs’ did not raise the local standard living in any way commensurate with the wealth that was generated. It also does not take into account the enormous environmental, social and cultural costs of extraction. If one begins to include these in the balance sheet, the question of whether this development actually led to real prosperity becomes even less clear. Rarely do the profits of extractive industries — and I am including tourism in this — account for the environmental or social damage they cause. Their impacts on the physical, social and cultural wellbeing of the community are not factored into the bottom line. Most often, the profits are privatized while the hidden costs are borne by citizens and local governments. A full accounting of all these costs might suggest that often communities would actually be more prosperous without the unbridled development of their resources by others.
The most crucial issues here — ones raised by several of the eloquent speakers — are ones of agency, control and benefit. Almost every person seeks a measure of greater comfort or prosperity for themselves or their children. The citizens of this parish are clearly interested in retaining their quality of life and the improving the infrastructure that support it. In deciding how best to do this, who could possibly understand the real needs and priorities of the local community better than the citizens who have created and sustained it?
You spoke at length about the notion of trust, encouraging the community to see you not as an adversary, but as a partner working in their best interests. To actually earn the trust that you are speaking of requires starting by asking more fundamental questions around what the goals and costs — tangible and intangible — of the proposed development are, and who stands to benefit. How much development does the community actually want to see? How would the community like to see that development envisioned and managed, and by whom? These were questions conspicuously absent from the meeting.
Trust is a two-way exchange; it cannot be earned unless it is given. For the local community to trust that the TEF is working in their interests requires that the TEF likewise trust that the people who live here know what is best for them. The goal must be to work towards a process that gives the local residents agency and control over the scope, scale and approach of development taking place in, and built upon, the community they have forged and maintained for decades.
One of the topics raised was that of the ‘vibe’, the intangible, authentic culture of the community. I would suggest that this is itself as great, if not greater, a treasure as any of the natural features. The citizens of the community, and groups such as the Winnifred Beach Benevolent Society are the architects of that vibe, and as such should be accorded the due respect, authority and agency in the form of veto power over any development decisions. The TEF can, and should, offer its guidance, expertise, connections and advice, and help guide the process of co-authoring a shared vision for the area, but decision making power must rest with the community.
Simply keeping the beach ‘free’ — a right now guaranteed by the courts — does not offset a significant redevelopment of the site and its environs. As one speaker put it, this “gives a teaspoon of sugar, but takes the whole pantry”. Another speaker, a local environmental lawyer, offered the outline of a sound and workable proposal for a management committee comprised of local stakeholders, including the local benevolent fund, to collaborate with the TEF. This is exactly the kind of clear, transparent and publicly accountable process that must guide development plans moving forward.
Jamaica’s coastline has no shortage of extensively developed tourist infrastructure. As was repeatedly stated at the meeting, many of the beaches once enjoyed by residents are now either inaccessible due to privatization or irreparably damaged by irresponsible development. As a tourist myself, I am far more interested in visiting a country for its true treasure — its unique culture and people — than for generic luxury or convenience. Anyone looking for traditional hotel or resort accommodation has no shortage of existing options to choose from. For Jamaica to be resilient in the face of evolving trends in tourism, it is crucial to maintain a genuine diversity of options, ones that are unique, specific and authentic to their place.. Those seeking more intimate and authentic cultural experiences and/or low-impact eco-tourism — and I believe these people to represent the future of tourism — deserve consideration and support by local communities and the TEF alike.
New technologies like AirBnB allow communities to directly engage with the global tourism marketplace. While not without problems of their own, their use can be thoughtfully regulated and supported so that tourist dollars can directly contribute to local prosperity, much more so than when mediated by an extractive corporate tourism industry. Protections need to be in place to prevent real estate speculation and profiteering, and to ensure that local residents, economies and ecosystems are prioritized.
In your presentation, you said that since the TEF is funded through levies applied to international flights and cruise tickets, it is free to invest in local tourism infrastructures ‘no strings attached’, with no profits expected or required. If you are to be taken at your word, then I can see no reason why people of Portland should not be given the lead in determining what their development priorities are.
To close, I would like to remind you of the plight of the DRC that you so evocatively raised. It is a painful example of the legacy of colonial exploitation that had undermined the ‘developing’ world for centuries. International tourism itself is a manifestation of the accumulation of historical injustices upon which the profound economic inequality of the modern world is built. Dr. Wallace, I implore you to take this opportunity to use the privilege afforded to you by your knowledge, expertise and position, to help reimagine how tourism serves your country’s most precious treasure of all: the people and culture of Jamaica.
Len Senater
Toronto - Canada