Aug. 29/2006 - Recent discussions have been taking place in Dominica regarding the issue of access by locals to the island’s beaches on which resort tourism projects are proposed. These discussions are obviously part and parcel of a much larger needed national dialogue on the role and place of tourism in the island’s development agenda. Similarly, these discussions raise fundamental questions, conflicts, impacts and repercussions that a tourism development programme engenders and demand an appropriate framework for resolution of this and other inevitable “points of friction”.

    One would have thought that considering the abundance of expensive and time-consuming studies and reports which have been concluded on the tourism option for Dominica, the beach access issue would have been recognized, addressed and even some directions given to assist current policy formulation. That appears not to be the case! Accordingly, the potential for confrontation, frustration and cancellation of tourism development proposals as a result of poorly conceived or impotent government efforts, is more and more becoming a reality. This issue has come to light in the case of the “Woodford Hill Proposal”, as reported in the media.

    Tourism programming and the occasional clash of perspectives, priorities and cultures attendant on it demands a level of sensitivity seldom encountered in other sectoral development efforts. The case of public access by local residents whether by right or by leave, to beaches slated for resort development (particularly by non-national development interests) is not new, even in the Caribbean. Witness the case of Barbados (1980-1983) where the hotel industry, concerned about the risk of crimes against, and harassment of, tourists by “beach boys” and vendors gave rise to the provocative calypso, “Jack”, by the Mighty Gaby:

“Jack don’ wan me to bathe on my beach,
Jack tell dem to kick me out-ta-reach,
Jack tell dem ah will neva mek-de-grade,
So strengthen security n’ buil barricade.
Chorus…:
“Dat cyan happen here in dis country,
Ah wan Jack to know dat de beach belong to we,
Dat cyan happen here, over my dead body,
Tell big guts Jack, Gaby say, de beach belong to we.”

1. Tourism was perceived as vital to the Barbados economy, which was at that time experiencing decreasing visitor arrivals due in part to crime and other incidents against tourists;
2. By law, the public enjoyed unrestricted access to the island’s beaches traditionally describes as the area up to “high water mark”. However that right precluded trespass across fronting private lands in order to reach the “beach”.
3. Access, in certain locations, could be limited by exclusive private ownership of all adjacent or abutting lands, or by the construction of fences running to the sea or by groynes and beachheads that interrupted foot traffic along the beach from off-site. However, the possibility of access by sea still remained.
4. Certainly, hotels and similar resorts have every right to bar “unauthorised intruders” onto their property and to prohibit them from soliciting on their lands or using private amenities and facilities such as lounge chairs, showers and rest rooms.

    To the extent that this issue rests primarily upon notions of segregating of visitors from locals or the sequestration of tourists for exploitation by the hotel/resort operator, there can be little sympathy for evoking a restricted access policy in such situations. On the other hand, where the resort facility is designed, built, marketed and caters to a clientele which expects a level of privacy and quality of facility inconsistent with an open beach policy, then conditions exist for considering a negotiated restricted access policy based on the solid and irreversible principle that the beach remains in public ownership.

    In the Woodford Hill case, there is incontrovertible evidence that the subject beach is one of the best on the island, and has been consistently used by surrounding villages as a favorite bathing and picnicking site. Equally true, a number of recreational site evaluation studies have identified this beach and surrounding lands as prime locations for a ‘flagship” resort tourism complex involving, hotels, villas, marinas, shopping, golfing, and a variety of passive recreational uses (Shankland and Cox). Also undeniable is the fact that should development proceed, it would provide stable and lucrative employment, during and post-construction, for a region whose economic prospects are now very challenging, and which suffers from out-migration of the ambitious young. Not to be ignored is the prospect that this and similar developments provide as consumers of agricultural produce from the surrounding areas.

    The way in which the Woodford Hill issue is resolved holds tremendous implications for other similar applications elsewhere in the country, which is not one blessed with an abundance of safe, attractive beaches. This issue cannot therefore be addressed or resolved in isolation.

    There is not sufficient information available to the writer at this time as to whether or not the Woodford Hill Bay lands under ownership by the applicants lend themselves to being easily sealed off from un-authorised public entry by artificial means. Even if this were the case, it would not be a socially desirable resolution of the matter, and not one to be countenanced by government.

    It is possible to develop a framework which is understandable and implementable, which furthers the inviolate principle of public land stewardship, which is fair and reasonable to all parties, and which does not jeopardize a responsible public tourism development program:

1. There are established models which permit a trained expert to determine the “carrying capacity” of beaches to be used for recreation under a variety of activities and intensities. These could be applied in the current case, and other future applications of the same nature, to establish the planned resort quality. The implication is that the higher the request for exclusive beach use, the fewer units would presumably be built, the higher per unit cost and the higher level of affordability to pay “carrying charges”.
2. In return for exclusivity, the developer could be required to pay into a fund, either on a one-time basis or annually, the proceeds of which would be used by government to designate, develop and operate an alternative local recreational facility complete with shelters, showers, restrooms, garbage disposal, management and security.
3. The developer would be granted leasehold rights under negotiated conditions to the disputed beach area to be used as a restricted (guest only) facility. Ownership of the beach must remain in public trust and any “improvements” likely to result in stream diversion or change in volume flow, soil erosion, sand accretion or depletion, direct or indirect impact on inshore marine resources would require prior government approval.

    This is a matter for Government, as custodian of the public interest, to address through public policy consequent on good technical advice. Any other approach would be an unfortunate abdication of responsibility!