Growth through reform: A student’s perspective on national development (Part 1)

In recent years, “development” has been touted as the most pressing objective of successive administrations. One such area regarded as important for development is the public sector and its urgent need for reform. While Jamaica has made some progress in rationalising the public sector, to ensure efficiency through merging organisations with overlapping functions, more needs to be done to ensure that this process is implemented seamlessly across the government. In fact, I am positing that this process must be taken with organisations responsible for national development.

When examining these agencies, both urban and rural, one would stumble across several public sector bodies which in fact share duplicated roles. For example, the Urban Development Corporation (UDC) is charged with the mandate, as defined by the UDC Act (1968), Section 4, Subsection 1: “To carry out or secure the laying out or development of areas designated”.

When examining the act further, it outlines that the corporation may “acquire, manage and dispose of any land whether within or outside any designated area” and “carry on any business or undertaking for the development of any designated area”.

Based on the purview of the act, it can be argued that other corporations should be subsumed in the UDC, such as the Factories Corporation of Jamaica (FCJ). According to its website, the FCJ is a public company that is responsible for “the leasing, managing and developing of industrial and commercial properties islandwide”. With the UDC’s earlier stimulated mandate, to carry out business and development of a designated region, incorporating the FCJ would be a logical undertaking. There is no reason why projects currently being undertaken by the FCJ, such as the development of the Morant Bay Town Centre, cannot come under the gamut of the UDC.

Furthermore, the potential merging of agencies continues when examining the authorities tasked with planning and land use. The National Land Agency (NLA) is currently responsible for harmoniously combining the “core land information functions of government under one roof, (which) includes: Land Titles; Surveys & Mapping; Land Valuation & Estate (Crown Land) Management.” By itself, the function of this agency should be sufficient as it already absorbs agencies like the Land Administration and Management Programme (LAMP).

And yet, several other corresponding bodies exist that perform similar functions. For example, the Land Information Council of Jamaica (LICJ) operates its own National Spatial Data Management Division (NSDMD) which is responsible for “coordinating, implementing and managing national Geographic Information Systems (GIS) programmes and projects.” Moreover, there is even a Land Divestment and Advisory Committee that “has been given legal authority to provide advice in ensuring that government-owned lands are disposed of fairly, transparently, and equitably.” Again, this is another example of duplication of resources.

As I descended the rabbit hole further, the more confusing the environment became. My next focus turned to the National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA). NEPA represents a hydra that one is not quite certain on how to tackle. The organisation was formed to carry out the technical and administrative mandate of the three statutory bodies listed below:

n Natural Resources Conservation Authority (NRCA)

n Town and Country Planning Authority (TCPA)

n Land Development & Utilisation Committee (LDUC) Board

UNNECESSARY

However, what is interesting to note is that the three statutory bodies that were merged continue to maintain their own board and exist alongside the NEPA Advisory Board. Quite frankly, I believe it is unnecessary for an entity such as NEPA to have four respective bodies with their own boards operating within the organisation. It represents another such example of the pernicious duplication of resources, especially when examining the corresponding legislation that governs said bodies.

For instance, the Land Development and Utilisation Act, Section 12, Subsection 1 states: “There is hereby established a body to be called the Land Development and Utilization Commission which shall be a body corporate…with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, to enter into contracts, to sue and be sued in its said name and to do all things necessary for the purposes of this act.” The act further states that the duty of the commission is:

(a) to ensure that occupiers of agricultural units fulfil their responsibilities under this act to farm the agricultural land in such units;

(b) to ensure that such agricultural land is, as far as possible, properly developed and utilised; and

(c) to perform such other functions as may be required by the minister.

In light of these objectives, upon reflection, one could easily mistake this directive as a function of the Rural Agriculture and Developmental Authority (RADA). The RADA Act outlines that a purpose of the organisation is to “provide an efficient agricultural extension service and participate in the formulation and implementation of appropriate rural development projects” and “to secure the proper economic and efficient utilisation of all land in the rural areas.” Thus, the responsibility of land usage and development also overlaps with this additional agency.

Bearing in mind the labyrinth of land usage, planning agencies and development bodies that currently exist in the public sector, greater rationalisation and coordination needs to be done in order to ensure that development is implemented in a sustainable manner in light of the recent announcement by the government to develop a new National Spatial Plan.

n David Salmon is a first-year public policy and management student at The University of the West Indies, the 2019 recipient of the Morris Cargill Award for Opinion Journalism and a recipient for the Prime Minister’s National Youth Awards for Excellence in Nation Building. To send feedback, he may be contacted at davidsalmon@live.com.