Jamaica citizens sue government for free access to beaches
Natricia Duncan
Activists in Jamaica are going to court to stop government restrictions on beach access, claiming privatization favors tourists and investors while harming locals who rely on the sea. Led by the Jamaica Beach Survival Heritage Movement (Jabbem), they aim to end the colonial-era Beach Control Act through five lawsuits over specific beaches. The government argues for balancing economic benefits, but activists demand unconditional, permanent access rights.
Activists in Jamaica will go to court next week to stop the government from further restricting access to beaches. They argue that leasing the coastline to major hotel chains enriches private investors and tourists while stripping Jamaicans of livelihoods, recreation, and health tied to the sea.
The Jamaica Beach Survival Heritage Movement (Jabbem) leads this legal fight, founded in 2020 after clashes between locals and police during violent protests over the closure of Mammee Beach in St. Ann, a popular tourist spot.
Five lawsuits will begin late this month to block beach privatization: Mammee Bay and Little Dunn’s River (St. Ann), Blue Lagoon (Portland), Bob Marley Beach (St. Andrew), and Flankers/Providence Beach (Montego Bay).
Devon Taylor, founder of Jabbem, described the lawsuits as a fight for survival. 'The sea is the only source of wild food in Jamaica. When you cut off access to the sea, you push us into hunger,' he said.
Roseroy Gay, 64, who has fished at Blue Lagoon since 1979, said changes in fishing zones and beach closures forced him to rely on children and relatives abroad for support. Clive 'Up Up' Ivy, who sells carved wood and beaded bracelets at Little Dunn’s River, said instability and closures have severely hit his income.
Jabbem and community groups hope the lawsuits will end the Beach Control Act of 1956, which gives the state ownership of the coastline and seabed, meaning anyone wanting to use or develop a beach needs a government license. Activists argue this law, dating from when Jamaica was a British colony, supports the multibillion-dollar all-inclusive tourism industry, sending profits overseas or to a wealthy minority.
Taylor noted that the system perpetuates landlessness and inequality. 'The prime minister has the authority to address these issues through cabinet. It’s a political reluctance, and it didn’t start with the current PM; the Beach Control Act has been around since 1956 and successive governments have not sought to repeal it,' he said.
Environment and Climate Change Minister Matthew Samuda said the 'idea of access rights' should be explored, but the government must consider how to convert natural resources into 'economic benefits' for all citizens. He noted about 112,000–116,000 Jamaicans work in tourism, and 300,000–350,000 (over 10% of the population) benefit through related sectors like agriculture, transport, and crafts. He also stated new development approvals require developers to create sea corridors.
In March, Prime Minister Andrew Holness proposed a beach management and access policy, promising to modernize laws and enhance access. However, activists argue the policy still allows unacceptable restrictions. Taylor stressed: 'What that policy wants to say is that Jamaicans will not have a fundamental right. They will only have a conditional right, at the discretion of the license-holding developer.'
Damion Coombs, Jabbem’s community engagement director, agreed: 'We’re still talking about “conditional access,” meaning someone can decide if you can enter – and charge a fee. We are fighting for free, lawful, unrestricted, and permanent rights.'
Activists also worry about the National Reconstruction and Recovery Agency (Narra) Act passed in March to speed up rebuilding after Hurricane Melissa. They argue it undermines the Prescription Act of 1882, which protects legal rights to land or pathways continuously used as public beach access for at least 20 years. Taylor warned: 'The Narra Act will interfere with our last tool to fight for beaches, the Prescription Act, by disrupting continuous use, restricting access to information under confidentiality clauses, and centralizing power in the prime minister’s office.'
Opposition environment minister Omar Newell shares this view, calling Narra 'an absurd concentration of power in the hands of one minister, the prime minister'. However, Minister Samuda defended the act, saying it enables 'large-scale emergency procurement needed to build resilience before the next hurricane'. He added: 'There’s no weakening of oversight. You still have to go to parliament, still need necessary permits. What it does is ensure timely response for project implementation.'