The Marina Proposal in Belle Rivière
Belle Rivière is a coastal village of 240 households. Sixty-two residents are registered fishers who launch from the only sheltered beach; 18 small guesthouses depend on the same beach and reef. A developer proposes a 90-berth marina with a breakwater, promising 85 construction jobs for 14 months and 40 permanent jobs. The plan requires dredging 3 hectares of seagrass, closing public beach access for 14 months, and rerouting the fish-landing area. The environmental impact assessment omits seagrass fish-nursery data. At a council meeting, 150 people attend: most are guesthouse owners and residents; only 6 fishers are present because the meeting was announced on social media. The council has 30 days to approve, defer, or reject. The developer says delay will lose financing.
1. Identify the main stakeholders in this decision and explain how a stakeholder map should change the council's next step.
Read the worked answer
Stakeholders: fishers, guesthouse owners, the developer, residents, beach users, the reef and seagrass ecosystem, future generations, the council, and financiers.
Why a map changes the next step: a power–interest–legitimacy map shows fishers have high legitimacy and high interest but low power and were absent; guesthouse owners have high power and a business interest, not neutral evidence. The 150 attendees are therefore not a representative sample. The council should not treat the meeting as a vote. It should commission a short fisher-specific consultation and an independent review of the seagrass nursery data before deciding. The map also reveals the reef has no direct voice, so the council must act as its trustee. This changes the next step from approve or reject to targeted evidence-gathering.
2. Recommend one decision - approve, defer, or reject - with two conditions that would make it acceptable. Justify using sustainable development and the precautionary principle.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: defer, not approve or reject. A 60–90 day deferral allows an independent seagrass survey and a fisher consultation. Conditions for eventual approval: (1) no dredging until the survey shows the nursery can be protected or compensation is funded; (2) a guaranteed alternative landing site and compensation for 14 months of lost access; (3) written job targets for local fishers.
Reasoning: sustainable development requires balancing economic, social, and environmental costs. The marina offers jobs, but the assessment omits nursery data and access loss falls hardest on 62 fishers. The precautionary principle applies because seagrass damage may be irreversible and scientific information is incomplete. Rejection would forgo jobs; approval now would externalise risk onto fishers. Deferral is the least irreversible step.
3. The developer argues that the 150 attendees show community support. Evaluate this claim.
Read the worked answer
Claim is weak. Attendance measures presence, not support. The meeting was announced on social media, which likely excluded older fishers and low-income residents; only 6 of 62 fishers attended. Guesthouse owners have a direct business interest in more visitors, so their attendance cannot be read as community-wide approval. There was no secret ballot, household survey, or separate fisher meeting. The developer is inferring support from a self-selected group.
What would be stronger evidence: a random household survey, a fisher register vote, written submissions, and a count of objections. Until then, the council should record the meeting as consultation, not consent.