RECENT news reports indicated that the application of the “Shorelock” technology will proceed in Negril, but will be restricted to a new location — the Norman Manley Sea Park. The news item also noted that the government agency purchasing the technology reported that consensus was reached with Negril stakeholders to limit the application to the Sea Park beach.

Norman Manley Sea Park is the only remaining free public bathing beach area in Negril. Because of its close proximity to Negril’s poorer residential communities it is the most popular beach for locals’.

For many years the beach remained largely improperly managed. However, plans are afoot via funding from the Tourism Enhancement Fund to upgrade the facilities. Despite historical neglect, the beach illustrates some benefits of low-level development. It does not have the many buildings built too close to the high water mark and that prevents natural migration of the beach inland. It also has more natural vegetation on the beach compared to majority of the Long Bay strip. As a result, the beach area is very wide, even when most areas complain of significant beach erosion.

The reported compromise struck by the Government to restrict application of Shorelock in Negril to the Norman Manley Sea Park is characteristic of two types of environmental injustice cases. First, activities that may be environmentally harmful, or that may pose human health risks, are placed in poorer neighbourhoods. Second, environmental injustice occurs when multinationals export often hazardous technology or products to developing countries like Jamaica. They opt to do this because our environmental laws tend to be less stringent, and the poor and voiceless are left to bear a significantly higher portion of the harm brought to their backyard.

The Government is intent on using Shorelock on the Long Bay beach despite there being little support for its use in Negril. A variety of long-standing Negril stakeholders have ably voiced their objections:

* Credible scientific evidence is lacking to substantiate the performance claims made by the proprietor. While success has been claimed in limited application in Jamaica, stakeholders’ observation of that application tell a conflicting story. Plus, in any beach ecosystem there are always multiple factors that contribute to sand accumulation. There is no objectively gathered evidence to isolate beach sand presence or accretion singularly to this controversial technology.

* The technology, although developed in the USA where environmental standards are much more rigorous, has never been applied there, or approved by product regulatory agencies for sale and application.

* The project amounts to Government of Jamaica expending the credibility of its State procurement powers to endorse untested and risky proprietary technology. This action gives the proprietor a significant marketing tool to utilise GOJ’s endorsement to market the product to other beach operators desperate for a solution to beach erosion.

* The physical characteristics of Negril’s beach are significantly different from all other locations. The physical structure of beaches where the technology has been applied is defined by protective coves compared to Long Bay — a largely linear exposed coastline. Therefore, arguing that the technology has been used in other locations does not mean that it is suitable for Negril.

* The tourism investment along the Long Bay beach is too significant to the local and national economy to put the beach at increased risk of damage based on unproven technology.

What has been omitted from the Shorelock debate is that only public bathing beaches, that are used mostly by Jamaicans, have been selected as testing sites. Use of the controversial technology will now place regular Jamaicans at a higher risk of harm compared to tourists or even the decision-makers who likely do not use the Sea Park beach.

So, was the site changed to the Norman Manley Sea Park because majority of its users do not have a voice to object to this action that may potentially harm them?

If one were to consider credible science in the selection of testing sites for Shorelock, this site would rank poorly to test new technology for future application to other sections of Long Bay for several reasons:

1. In every technological application the developer will stipulate the operating conditions or requirements for the product to work. Environmental systems, like beaches, are no different. However, stakeholders contend that neither Hydros Coastal Systems, nor NEPA, or any independent source has provided this information.

2. The natural physical pulse of Long Bay involves a recurrent cycle of erosion, transport and later deposition of sand to various sections of the beach. In the short term, some areas from which sand is eroded will later receive sand deposits, although at varying rates. At the Sea Park, sand movement is constrained by a groyne that allows sand to accumulate next to it. When Shorelock is applied, because of the abundance of sand accumulated beside the groyne, it may appear that the beach is being extended.

3. Shorelock is very likely to have a potential negative impact on the Long Bay beach sediment budget based on its explained functioning, which involves interrupting the natural processes of erosion, transport and accumulation of sand in other areas where the technology is not applied. Much of the sand available to Shorelock at this location is eroded from areas to the north of the Sea Park. This sand is loose and would normally be later transported to previously eroded sections of the beach. Any binding agent (eg Shorelock) applied to sand at this location may initially appear to be adding sand to the beach, and one may be inclined to trumpet success. However, the unusual, localised characteristics at the Sea Park make it what in statistics is referred to as an outlier case. Claims of success at building back the beach would therefore amount to phantom science, as the unique localised conditions are not present elsewhere along Long Bay. Therefore, any success of Shorelock at the Sea Park beach is unlikely to be replicated to the larger extent of Long Bay. And, after all, that is the goal of testing new technology.

Monitoring of the application and effects of Shorelock is proposed for the Discovery Bay beach, as a response to charges that the technology has not been independently tested. This does not solve the problems Negril has highlighted for Long Bay. Any results observed in Discovery Bay will not necessarily hold true for Long Bay because the two beach systems are sufficiently different in physical structure and environmental dynamics (eg beach profile, water quality and microbiology of the beach)’. Therefore, if Government is intent on experimenting with our public beaches, monitoring has to be done where the technology is applied. Only then will meaningful data be available to show the impact. Also, since the technology as described does not prohibit continued use of the beach while the chemical is resident in the sand and water, some level of public health monitoring ought to be done as well.

Government has now created a scenario for itself where it is caught between a rock and a hard place. It has to meet deadlines and commitments to a generous donor to deliver on proposed activities in exchange for getting grant funding. However, it needs to fulfill its responsibility to not cause harm to the Jamaican people or environment. Who will protect us regular Jamaicans from environmental injustice occasioned by the State?

Simone A. Williams is a PhD Candidate in Environmental Resources Management based in Negril.

sawilli695@hotmail.com