One weakness in Jamaica's national policy-planning process is that it is not integrated. We have a Planning Institute of Jamaica, but it does not plan sector policy. The tourism ministry prepares the Tourism Master Plan, the mining ministry prepares the National Minerals Policy and the environment ministry prepares the National Watershed Policy, among others.

It really is a turf war, with each so-called 'national' plan stating its ministry's claim for precedence and dominance over the others. Each plan seeks to zone our small island into fiefdoms: watersheds, resort areas, national parks, mining and prospecting areas, forest reserves, and the like; and of course, there are big overlaps and use conflicts.

The same area can be zoned for mining, tourism, agriculture, environmental protection and housing at the same time and all cannot happen at the same time.

The ministry that wins the battle and gets the spoils is the most powerful, the one with the strongest legislation, the one with the biggest money running behind it.

Mineral exploitation

For the past two weeks, I have been commenting on a document with the oxymoronic title The National Minerals Policy: Sustainable Development of the Mining Industry, drawing on the analysis of fellow environmentalist Wendy Lee, executive director of the Northern Jamaica Conservation Association.

The minerals policy is a good example of an attempt at hegemony by one sector over the others, for it puts mineral exploitation above all else, including food security and the protection of water resources. When a healthy forest is stripped bare and the minerals underneath are removed, that land is now rendered unsuitable for almost all other uses. It will take centuries for ecosystem functions to recover.

No tourism can take place on the scar created on the landscape - no nature hikes, no birdwatching. According to the Mining Act, mining companies are required to 'restore' the land, but you cannot replant a natural forest, and all they do - when they do it - is plant grass. The hope is that the land can be converted from forest watershed into agriculture, but the truth is that most often the land is not 'restored' at all!

When this is pointed out by (clearly bad-minded) environmentalists, rather than penalising the mining companies for breaking the law and breaching the conditions of their mining leases, the Government exempts them from having to keep the law.

Instead of being required to comply, companies have been given permission to ignore the law. The National Minerals Policy is silent on this incestuous relationship, which probably means that the Government intends to continue it.

The national Minerals Policy claims that "policy conflicts have been avoided by aligning the provisions of this policy with those of the draft Watershed Policy and the policy for the National System of Protected Areas". This claim is false. There are many, many areas of policy conflict between mining and other areas. But wherever a choice has to be made between mining and some other activity, it is the minerals sector that will prevail. Big money runs behind mining!

Cost-benefit analyses

I can think of no justification for the primacy of mining, especially over forest conservation and agriculture. When our bauxite resources are depleted we will still need water to drink and food to eat.

Those responsible for national planning should conduct a full comparison of alternative land uses (e.g. agriculture, tourism) as well as ecosystem services, biodiversity, cultural heritage, housing, recreation, and intangible values such as health. Cost and benefit analyses of mining must include the increased costs of treating Jamaicans for sicknesses caused by mining and refining, as well as the resulting devaluation of human capital and loss of productivity.

The Minerals Policy calls for a public relations campaign to convince the public that mining is a good thing. Why does the industry need a public relations campaign?

If it is so beneficial, why aren't the benefits obvious? And why should taxpayers pay for this propaganda?

Peter Espeut is an environmentalist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.