The battle for access to Jamaica's billion-dollar beaches has intensified, with activists accusing the government of privatizing the coastline to support the country's thriving all-inclusive hotel industry at the expense of locals. Every year, millions of visitors flock to Jamaica's gorgeous beaches, fueling a multibillion-dollar tourism sector. However, successive governments have privatized shorelines, leading to clashes between protesters and police, and the tearing down of barriers around privatized properties. The complex dispute is now playing out in Jamaica's courts.
The Core Dispute: Public Access vs. Tourism Revenue
Five simultaneous civil court cases are being brought against the government and private landowners to prevent further privatization of beaches in popular tourist destinations. At sprawling beach resorts across the country, locals are prohibited from accessing the coastline unless they pay to join hotel guests. On one side are community members, craft vendors, fishers, and other locals who depend on the sea. They argue that cutting off beach access is discriminatory, violates their constitutional rights, and perpetuates a colonial logic that Jamaicans do not deserve to enjoy their own natural resources.
The legal challenge targets the 1956 Beach Control Act, passed when Jamaica was a British colony. This law placed the island's foreshore and seabed into state ownership. Activists claim that the government's current beach licensing regime has given private companies exclusive control over sections of the coast. In March 2018, Prime Minister Andrew Holness proposed a new beach access and management policy to modernize legislation and increase access. However, campaigners say the policy only allows for qualified rights that remain subject to conditions.
Government's Position: Economic Benefits for All
On the other side, the government argues that income from the billion-dollar tourism sector benefits everyone. Matthew Samuda, the minister of environment and climate change, stated that while the idea of access needs to be explored, the government must consider how to convert natural assets into economic benefits for all citizens. He noted that between 112,000 and 116,000 Jamaicans are employed in tourism, and an estimated 300,000 to 350,000—more than 10% of the population—benefit from connected industries. Samuda also pointed out that recent approvals for new developments require developers to carve out corridors to the sea. Activists argue this is at the discretion of landowners and fails to address existing private beach concerns.
The Legal Battle and Cultural Significance
At the heart of the legal battle is the Jamaica Beach Birthright Environmental Movement (Jabbem), founded in 2020 by Devon Taylor, an immunologist with a PhD in biochemistry. Taylor says the fight for beach access has made him an anticolonial fighter. The group's case centers on the 1882 Prescription Act, which protects the legal right to land or pathways continuously used as public access routes for at least 20 years, including beaches. Many Jabbem members have strong cultural ties to beaches, where they learned to swim and which serve as primary leisure spaces for families who cannot afford trips abroad or hotel passes. For Rastafarians, beaches hold spiritual significance for meditation. The Blue Lagoon in Portland is considered medicinal for elderly people. Taylor emphasizes that beaches provide livelihoods for fishers and food for local communities: "When you cut us off from the sea … you are actually setting us up to starve."
Campaigners' Perspective: Not Anti-Tourism
Carolyn Cooper, a Jamaican professor emerita at the University of the West Indies and volunteer adviser to Jabbem, calls the access restrictions outrageous. She states: "It's as though this government, and successive governments of Jamaica, don't seem to realise that Black Jamaicans are entitled to leisure." Campaigners insist they are not anti-tourism, citing examples like St Lucia, where all beaches are accessible to the public while tourism flourishes. They worry that current laws destroy coastlines, keep locals from leisure, and benefit only a wealthy few, with major hotel profits going to elites or foreign owners. Legal proceedings could take years, and trials have been postponed at great expense. However, Taylor remains resolute: "Our evidence is overwhelming, and nothing can defeat this case for prescriptive rights. So we continue on. We are very patient. And we'll see the victory."
