THE popular perception of development inclusive of plenty of concrete and large elaborate buildings often presents a difficulty for environmentalists because of what is lost in the process.

Beauty is indeed in the eyes of the beholder. We are reminded of this by the report in the Sunday Observer of the strong opposition among environmentalists to the government’s plan to sell the 3,000-acre Font Hill beachfront and wetland property in South West St Elizabeth.

Minister of Energy and Mining Mr James Robertson, under whose portfolio the Petroleum Cororation of Jamaica (PCJ)-owned property falls, is reported as having indicated that it will be divested to tourism interests.

Mr Robertson, whose embrace of limestone mining as a replacement for the deflated bauxite/alumina sector has already attracted the unfriendly attention of nature activists, claims that Font Hill “is ideal for a high-end tourism and new town development, with beachfront, golf courses and airstrips”.

For politicians, such talk translates to ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’ and perhaps we should be forgiven if we suspect that they are also thinking ‘votes, votes, votes’.

It seems that South St Elizabeth members of parliament, Agriculture Minister Dr Christopher Tufton (South West) and Mr Frank Witter (South East) are totally convinced of the value of the proposed development.

Dr Tufton claims: “It will create jobs for the people of the area,” and Mr Witter believes it will “bring greater opportunities.”

But environmentalists clearly feel that the proposed development would be one more step on the road to destruction of the goose with the golden egg.

For rather than enhancing Jamaica’s tourism product, they insist that projects such as that planned for Font Hill will undermine the very environment that makes Jamaica such an attractive destination for vacationers of all sorts, not just those in search of sun, sea and sand.

Those interviewed by the Sunday Observer say Font Hill is “a very special” and an increasingly rare area of biodiversity, rich in species including birds, crocodiles, turtles, bats, butterflies and marine life.

Ms Diana McCaulay, chief executive officer at the Jamaica Environment Trust, makes the telling point that Font Hill has actually been identified as an area to be protected “in the Master Plan for Sustainable Tourism” and therefore should never be considered for such a project in the first place.

The difficulty of course is that protecting the natural environment is not ‘sexy’. It won’t win many votes. That’s the main reason land use rules have never been comprehensively and rigorously enforced.

Yet, all well-thinking Jamaicans will easily recognise that not only the precious tourism product but also life as we have always known it will be seriously undermined if we persist with the reckless abuse of the natural state.

This newspaper is in no position to judge. Perhaps the proposed project at Font Hill can be sustainably developed. Jamaicans will be relying on our environmental watchdogs as well as the media to keep us informed in that regard.

Also, the government must under no circumstances be allowed to forget its own commitment as expressed in the National Development Plan, Vision2030 that “the rules for government, business, investors and consumers will have to be rewritten to ensure that environmental considerations become integral factors in economic decision-making”.