ONCE again, environmental lobbyists are going to bat against the Government over property it intends to sell to tourism interests.

The property at the centre of the dispute this time around is Font Hill in St Elizabeth, home to the American crocodile and several other species.

Minister of Energy and Mining James Robertson announced in April that the 3,000-acre property, owned by the Petroleum Corporation of Jamaica, would be divested to facilitate development.

“The Font Hill property is ideal for a high-end tourism and new town development, with beach front, golf courses and airstrips,” Robertson told Jamaica Information Service, the public relations arm of the Government, on April 23.

But ‘green’ lobbyists insist the property, which is not only home to crocodiles, but also several species of birds and turtles, among other things, should not be sold. Among the vociferous lobbyists is Dr Bryon Wilson, zoologist and lecturer at the University of the West Indies.

“Hopefully this will be kind of a watershed moment. (Successive) governments have basically been selling off the beach property… and Font Hill is the latest one,” he told the Sunday Observer. “Font Hill is possibly the best or one of the best — second only to Manatee Bay — for coastal real estate for biodiversity. And if they did sell it, it would destroy the place. But the big question is, what are they going to do with all the crocodiles?”

Added Wilson: “We counted 67 crocodiles on the Font Hill property (during a visit there recently) — and that was just how many we saw in one day. So literally there are hundreds of them there and if they build a big hotel, where are they going to go?”

At the same time, he said the area is also a nesting area for sea turtles and other species, which must be taken into account in any consideration for development of the area.

“Font Hill has really good nesting habitat for not just crocs, but also sea turtles, birds. It is (also) a really valuable piece of real estate because it is unspoiled, and if they do any of the stuff they propose, they will destroy it,” Wilson said. “They can’t sell off everything. You need a little sustainability,” he added.

Wendy Lee, president of the Northern Jamaica Conservation Association, was in full agreement.

“I am totally against the current approach of the Government, which is to sell off of our coastal assets without proper scrutiny,” Lee said. She added that the Government’s approach also went against scientific advice, stakeholders’ wishes and “all the voices” advocating for sustainability. “I mean, do we have no commitment to environmental conservation?” she remarked.

“And, of course,” she continued, “you have the whole potential of that area not only to be a wildlife reserve but (also) to have the associated low-impact long-term tourism that can benefit from the wildlife assets. We seem to have a Government that does not understand the economic potential for using our wildlife and natural resources sustainably, for capitalising on their value for the future.”

Diana McCaulay, chief executive officer at the Jamaica Environment Trust, also voiced opposition to any development at Font Hill.

“It is very distressing to hear that a big hotel is being contemplated for a place that is identified as to be protected in the Master Plan for Sustainable Tourism, p 175,” she said. “It is a very important wetland area, and (one will) understand the role wetlands play in protecting our coasts and providing fish. So I hope that there is transparency surrounding whatever we plan for Font Hill.”

Jan Pauel, a member of the Jamaica Environmental Advocacy Network (JEAN), was of a similar mind.

“Font Hill is a very special area of dense Jamaican biodiversity that has managed to survive human encroachment over time. The area is extremely diverse and rich in many species, such as birds, crocodiles, turtles, bats, butterflies, marine-life and many others — plus the forest and marine habitat they live in. The area has already been encroached on and reduced to only a few hundred acres of remaining original natural habitat for these animals, many of which are protected,” he said.

“Bulldozing the mangrove and dry forests for massive hotels is insane and immoral. The loss of the reefs and associated marine species and birds would be a serious loss for Jamaica and the Jamaicans who reside in that area — not to mention the forests in North America that these creatures live in for part of each year,” he added.

“This destruction and exploitation is only benefiting foreign multinationals, who will send the profits abroad and Jamaica and the Jamaican people will lose their natural heritage forever. This destructive policy of levelling our coastlines and erecting concrete cities that destroy our natural heritage while simultaneously cutting off Jamaicans from access to their own beaches is wrong,” Pauel said further.

Still, Government appears enthusiastic about selling the property, noting, among other things, the employment possibilities.

“We are committed to working together to ensure that the property is developed. It will create jobs for the people of the area, and the recreation requirements,” Dr Christopher Tufton, the Member of Parliament for South West St Elizabeth, told JIS in its report published on April 26.

Frank Witter, the Member of Parliament for South East St Elizabeth, echoed his sentiment.

“For a very long time we have been trying to develop south coast tourism and the minister’s (Robertson’s) plan is in the right direction. Investment in tourism will bring greater opportunities for the people of the entire parish,” he was quoted by JIS as saying.

But environmental interests insist the disadvantages of such a move outweigh the advantages.

“The false ploy of it being ‘development and jobs’ is a farce that has been disproved in Jamaica and the rest of the Caribbean. Our natural heritage is more valuable to us economically and as a nation (in tact), than selling it out to become a concrete polluter in the interest of foreigners,” said Pauel.