Architects must play proactive role with Highway 2000

THE EDITOR, Sir:

OVER THIS past week there has been an increase in public discussion on the issue of the implementation of Highway 2000. We can all concede that this major infrastructural development project has the potential of opening up vast areas of undeveloped lands and spawning additional development projects adjacent to its path.

When the highway is completed the country can look forward not only to faster travel times between points on its path, but also to economic growth and development of all kinds - residential, recreational facilities, manufacturing enterprises - with a rapid commute to the Port of Kingston and to both international airports in Kingston and Montego Bay. As an idea therefore, Highway 2000 is commendable and should be supported.

In a letter to the Editor of The Gleaner dated May 9, 2001, the Jamaican Institute of Architects (of which I am a member) has criticised the implementation of Highway 2000 on procedural grounds. In particular, we have pointed to the lack of proper public information and consultation which is standard practice in many countries. But not in Jamaica. The consultations which the Highway 2000 team claims to have had are briefings about what has been proposed. The consultations of which we speak is a protracted process involving repeated meetings with all conceivable stakeholders, each having a right to express their concerns about the project, and the right to have their concerns considered by the planners of the project. This is the practice which has become accepted in many countries.

Consultations ensure that at the end of the day everyone accepts and owns the project even if not everyone is happy with all parts of the project. It is seen as a healthy, democratic and sustainable route to development. Unfortunately, this process means that sometimes a project may not get to implementation stage until many, many years after it is conceived. There are instances where stakeholders decide that it is better that the project never gets implemented at all. It is a democratic process. Jamaica does not have this process.

It is in this context therefore that the Jamaican Institute of Architects has a responsibility to the public not only to blow the whistle as it has in this instance, but also to seek opportunities to act. Knowing that the public will never get an opportunity for proper consultation, we should have accepted the invitation from the Highway 2000 project team to be involved in the process of review of Highway 2000.

This involvement would have created the possibility of protecting a wider public interest by, for example, asking questions on their behalf. Questions about the rights of the highway contractor to develop lands within the corridor versus the rights of the Parish Councils to control development in their domain. Questions about who has the ultimate responsibility for enforcing proper environmental standards within the development corridor. Questions about who will have the right to benefit from economic activities which may occur within the corridor - such as petrol stations, rest stops, etc.

And there are many more issues which are not clear or have not yet been aired. In my opinion the Highway 2000 project is commendable and inevitable. The authors of the project are moving swiftly towards implementation. As architects we need to move equally swiftly towards playing a proactive role in ensuring that that which we fear will not become reality.

I am etc.,

MARGARET JARRETT

Architect

E-mail:

marjar@mail.infochan.com

P.O. Box 541

Kingston 8

Via Go-Jamaica

Back to Letters