It’s easy for some to rush to the government’s defence, to echo slogans about development, jobs and progress whenever someone raises a question about what’s going on at Deux Branche or Concord. But those voices, often loudest when under pressure, should not be mistaken for evidence or for legitimacy. Their most common line now: “We need development. We can’t stop building infrastructure for a few critics.” They paint those asking questions as opponents of progress. That framing deserves a serious challenge.
First, the law is not optional. The country’s Physical Planning Division (PPD) exists precisely to manage land use, balance development and environmental integrity, and require paperwork before any major excavation, quarrying or construction begins. Supporters who say “trust the government, they know what they’re doing” ignore the fact that no publicly verifiable planning permission or environmental impact assessment (EIA) has been disclosed for the works in question. It is not speculation to demand compliance; it is insistence on the rule of law.
Second, claiming “progress” while ignoring documented damage, rivers fouled, sedimentation downstream, communities deprived of safe water, is not development. It is exploitation. The Kalinago Council recently issued a statement noting degradation of the Concord River and water pollution from construction activity tied to the airport project. Residents don’t need political speeches, they need clean water. They need certainty their environment is protected. To all those applauding progress without accounting for impact: what value do your new roads or airport have when rivers die and communities suffer?
Third, supporters often point to economic benefits or foreign investment as justification. That logic fails if the development undercuts the natural base that undergirds tourism, agriculture, and long-term livelihoods. In Dominica, land-use planning is not an optional luxury, it is a structural safeguard for future generations. To treat protected forest land or river valleys as disposable is to gamble with fate. Once the ecosystem collapses, no tourist count or foreign cheque will rebuild it.
Fourth, many who defend the government are not truly defending a plan, they are defending a narrative. They cling to slogans like “national interest,” “progress,” “jobs,” and “modernisation,” as if repeating them makes them real. But slogans are cheap. Evidence is not. A valid EIA, transparent public records, open community consultation, those are expensive only in honesty. That may explain the silence.
Fifth, to support government actions uncritically at a time like this is to ignore who bears the cost. It is always ordinary communities, often rural or Indigenous groups, who lose first when development is forced onto fragile ecosystems. The Kalinago Territory and Concord residents are not opponents of progress. They are stakeholders. Their livelihoods depend on the land, the rivers, the forests. If we develop without respect for them, we are building nothing but future regret.
Finally, to those holding up development as an unassailable virtue: the idea that any questioning or criticism amounts to being “anti-progress” is a false dichotomy. Responsible development does not require silence. It demands accountability, transparency, and respect for laws and people. Supporters who use patriotism as a shield are not patriots. They are opportunists.
Dominica deserves better than hollow promises and unaccountable excavation. We deserve a government that does not fear questions but answers them. We deserve developments that raise living standards, without eroding our foundations. And we deserve citizens who hold leaders to account, not because they oppose growth, but because they care about what kind of country, what kind of environment, they leave behind.
This article is copyright © 2025 DOM767
