Use State power to protect Bajans’ patrimony

When legendary Barbadian calypsonian Mighty Gabby released his mega hit Jack which won him the local calypso crown in 1982, he likely had no idea the impact this social commentary would have decades later.

It has been 42 years since the song hit the airwaves but we in Barbados and people across the Caribbean are still struggling with the matter of access to our natural resources – mainly our beaches.

Jack has become a protest song and rallying cry for activists who worry that our patrimony, in the form of our natural resources, is slowly being gobbled up by wealthy foreigners.

Worse yet, average citizens have harboured thoughts that our governments have become complicit in this situation by failing to use their legislative power to protect these national assets.

Frankly, the island’s dependency on tourism and the insatiable demand for foreign direct investment have made Barbados and its regional neighbours

quasi hostages to foreign investors and their demands.

When Gabby produced Jack, it was his social action against what he saw as unnecessary restrictions placed on those who used the beach to make a living. These included beach vendors, water sports operators and ordinary citizens.

The late legal luminary Jack Dear was chairman of the tourism authority at the time, and his goal was to reduce the problem of harassment of visitors on the beaches. Of course, the Mighty Gabby, gave himself poetic licence to give meaning to his message.

The protest song was used as an anthem for Saint Lucians to voice their displeasure over their exclusion from the popular beaches of Cap Estate.

It was featured on the many videos from the protests as Saint Lucians sang the Bajan song word for word, as though its message touched them the way it touched Barbadians more than four decades ago.

In fact, in February 2022, the government of Saint Lucia rescinded lands leased to a developer to ensure that public access to the pristine beaches of Cap Estates was restored.

That country’s Minister of Tourism Dr Ernest Hilaire stated: “We want to make a statement to developers that when you do come to Saint Lucia, these things matter to us as a people; our patrimony, our history, our heritage.”

He added: “What we are saying to the developer is not that we don’t want you. We’ll give you all the concessions and incentives, but right there, we have traditional areas that Saint Lucians have enjoyed for generations and we should not lose it.”

Closer to home, we have previously highlighted in this editorial space the increasing number of conflicts arising between investors and residents.

In some cases, it is non-Barbadians from Europe and North America, who have relocated to the island, who have been among the most strident objectors to invasive tourism developments.

In St Joseph, residents took to the streets in multiple protests with Gabby’s Jack as their marching song. They have gone as far as to take the Australian developer to court to stop his denying them access to Joe’s River Bridge and Joe’s River Gully.

At Lower Carlton in St James, residents have taken umbrage to the planting of a high-rise condo complex in their community.

The coastal side of the West Coast is now so jammed packed with luxury homes and the few remaining local landowning holdouts, that developers have turned to the spaces on the opposite side of Highway 1, much to the irritation of this community.

It was, therefore, more than instructive that planning specialist with the Coastal Zone Management Unit, Fabian Hinds laments the fact that some developers in Barbados are flouting the rules of planning permission.

He said this was one of the “challenges” impacting the implementation of the amended Physical Development Plan of 2023.

At a recent public discussion, he said the plan recommended (not instructed) “that cultural sites are not to be developed”.

Mr Hinds identified areas in the north of the island such as Little Bay and Cove Bay in St Lucy where a 200-metre setback was in place for beachfront properties.

The residents of St Joseph must certainly be wondering why the Joe’s River area, which has been used for hundreds of years – from the enslaved to current residents – has not been considered by the state for protection from development also.