As long as I am afforded the privilege of penning my opinions, I would like intermittently to expose unfair practices affecting our citizenry in the hope that something positive will ensue.

A good friend is a St Ann farmer whose family owns a large parcel of land. Farming is a very demanding business. It requires your full-time participation, it takes a lot of investment in time, effort and money and it is fraught with problems ranging from praedial larceny to drought. It has become a risky undertaking for some and a thankless endeavour at a time in our history when we should become a productive nation that relies on our own natural resources for survival.

My friend's family has come to a place where their future viability as farmers and financial foundation are uppermost in their minds. To secure their fiscal goals they wisely made plans for subdividing their property and selling it off as smaller farming lots.

The St Ann Parish Council would have approved their de-velopmental proposal but the Jamaica Bauxite Institute (JBI) declined their application stating that the property falls within an area reserved for possible future mining and cannot be subdivided.

The JBI admits that many people unknowingly already own lands that fall into the category of an area reserved as an exclusive prospective (bauxite) mining area. And, the JBI has recently added more properties to their list of reserved areas. They even admitted that there is no notification of this anywhere - therefore, anyone acquiring lands runs the risk of inadvertently buying JBI-reserved real estate.

Common practice in the parish

Arguably, reserving prospective mining lands appears to be somewhat common in St Ann, but it's certainly not confined to there. Now, several landowners are finding it difficult to subdivide and sell their properties because their land had been or was recently placed on a list of JBI-reserved land that may be used for bauxite mining sometime in the future or falls beside those lands and, therefore, must be reserved for possible access to possible future mining.

I know that many decisions are made with the best of intentions but they are sometimes based on antiquated policies. Certainly, at one time, bauxite was our prime income earner and acquiring mining lands was all-important. But, even back then, the citizens who owned suitable mining lands should be fully informed beforehand of the possibility that, perhaps one day in the future they would be required to relinquish ownership of their land and be remunerated accordingly. To deny development - and therefore, the realisation of investments and dreams - is unfair.

Now, my friend has submitted an appeal and taken on a second job in an attempt to offset some of his family's anticipated shortfall. Perhaps the JBI will require their lands in his lifetime or his children's lifetime or his grandchildren's lifetime or perhaps (given the severe downturn in bauxite demand), perhaps they never will. In the meantime, the family cannot subdivide and sell their land. Selling it as is would be very difficult.

Stifling small farming

We all know that the government can, under eminent domain, acquire anybody's lands, but, to tie up private lands for possible future bauxite mining often destroys personal financial endeavours, stifles small farming and housing solutions and robs the country of land transfer revenues. In all fairness and for the sake of healthy commerce, the JBI should either selectively relax their rules or purchase contested reserved lands now at fair market prices and do whatever they want with them.

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Feedback may be sent to garthrattray@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.