The economic development of Jamaica is extremely important, but it has to be done in the right way and with appropriate regard to damage to the environment and the living conditions of its people. It is, therefore, critical that the instruments that govern our development are robust and fair.

In developing major infrastructure, our usual recourse is for a proposal document – that is usually not made public – and a publicly available Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which is the main way of determining how a project will affect people and the areas adjacent to the project. These documents should provide a clear review, carried out by qualified scientists, that allows the public to form their own opinions on the pros and cons of the development.

I now turn my attention to the geology section of the Montego Bay Bypass EIA, which I find is completely unsatisfactory. The geological data presented are stated to come from Bateson (2008), which is simply a digitised version of Geological Survey Geological Sheet 3 (Montego Bay) published in 1972, nearly 50 years ago (they are identical).

There have been numerous studies in the 48 years since that map was produced, and no mention is made of this or anything else. The faults shown on many of these early geological survey maps were identified through the use of aerial photographic interpretation – new at the time, but not now – yet many ‘faults’ identified in such studies have been shown to be benches cut during the uplift of Jamaica or other lineaments not related to real geological faults.

The geology presented in the EIA uses archaic terms such as ‘raised reefs’ rather than accepted geological formations, for example, Hopegate and Falmouth formations, which are easily mappable around Montego Bay. There is no indication of limestone fan deposits, which flank many of the north-facing hillsides on the coast of St James and which would potentially present problems for road construction.

See full story below.