On International Mother Earth Day, April 22, 2021, President Irfaan Ali spoke on the Escazú Agreement, which had been adopted in 2018 but which has now become effective. It is a Latin American and Caribbean environmental treaty which has been ratified by 24 countries to date, including Guyana, and is intended to ensure that the people of the continent have access to information on decisions affecting their environment, and can participate in a meaningful way in those decisions. In the President’s words: “Guyana as a signatory to the ‘Agreement’ hereby endorses the right of access to environmental information. It welcomes public participation in the environmental decision-making process. It supports access to justice in environmental matters and commits to working to ensure the right of every person to live in a healthy environment.”
Mr Shawn Johnson, in a letter to Stabroek News on behalf of the residents of Malgre Tout-Versailles detailed the runaround he received from various agencies in relation to the removal of mangroves on the West Bank by Tristar Incorporated, including the Environmental Protection Agency. It is clear he had not been informed of the terms of Escazú to which the administration was a signatory. At the end of it all he was unable to elicit any “concrete” information from the EPA, or a copy of the permit which they had issued.
The Malgre Tout−Met-en-Meerzorg Neighbourhood Democratic Council did not fare any better than Mr Johnson. Their Chairman, Mr Tennessee Vickerie told this newspaper that the council had not only raised objections to the destruction of the mangroves, but had also relayed its concerns to the Central Housing and Planning Authority, among other agencies. It still did not know on what basis approval had been given to Tristar.
Minister of Public Works Juan Edghill was totally unapologetic. He said that it was not a “willy-nilly process”, and that it had been done “thoroughly with wide discussions.” It seems that he thinks it was sufficient to engage with the various agencies involved, but not with the local communities. Is it that Mr Edghill had not read the text of the Escazú Agreement and was therefore unaware of its provisions, or could it be he and the President are at odds on this matter? Alternatively, did he in a legalistic way just argue to himself that although the treaty had been signed in 2018, it did not come into effect until April 22 this year, and before that date he was not bound by it?
Or is it simply a case that the entire government thinks that international accords are just for show? After all, Guyana has an almost unparalleled record for signing international agreements and then ignoring the commitments that these require. The attraction for local administrations is the kudos associated with subscribing to such covenants, but as noted, that still does not mean they feel compelled to implement their provisions. And Escazú, perhaps, is yet another example of this casual attitude.
The combined opposition including all three parties comprising the joinder seat, have criticised the decision on the removal of the mangroves, Opposition Leader Joseph Harmon calling for the immediate “stoppage” of the wharf construction until there had been meaningful and widespread consultations with the communities and until a credible environmental impact assessment had been undertaken and made public.
ANUG Chairman Timothy Jonas said that the actions of the PPP/C in this instance were no different from the pre-2015 party as wrongdoings were being condoned and covered up. He expressed the view that if there were more independent Local Authority areas answerable to the people, many developments which represented a threat to communities and protected eco-systems would not be allowed. In a centralised system where government has a hand in the operations of the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils, there would never be comprehensive and independent decision-making to benefit the communities. This would seem to imply that the governmental structures in this country by their very nature militate against the implementation of the Escazú requirements.
LJP Leader Lenox Shuman made reference to the double standards the government was exhibiting on the matter of protecting mangroves, and said it was time for a conversation on what constituted an environmental crime. “How do we measure or quantify what should be protected and what should (be) in the national interest? If we are looking at development and saying development comes at a cost give back the Indigenous people their lands at Shell Beach,” we quoted him as saying.
For her part Asha Kissoon of the TNM told this newspaper, “We agree there must be progress but we need sustainable development; you go straight to mangroves. That should not have happened, it is unacceptable.” As for Minister Edghill’s response to all of this, at a press conference last week he invited Leader of the Opposition Joseph Harmon, environmentalists and other individuals who are concerned about the environment to partner with the ministry for the country’s development. Well here he is definitely at odds with his boss. Is he not aware that the main opposition is embargoed from being invited to talks with the government until Mr Harmon and his party recognise the former’s legitimacy? So much for Escazú again, if those who represent many communities are not allowed to enter discussions with the administration on environmental – or any other issues, for that matter.
Leaving aside all the legal aspects involved in the matter of the mangroves – and even as it stands, the law has been undeniably broken – there is a fundamental contradiction at the bottom of all of this, which was alluded to by Mr Shuman. It is the conflict between protecting the environment and its associated eco-systems, and development. How are these seemingly antithetical things to be reconciled? The Minister’s answer is simply that development takes precedence, and at his press conference last week did not commit to any position that the views of communities would hold much sway when government was investing in what they regarded as a progressive project.
The media were informed, for example, that the current shore base was just one of many which were expected, but that the removal of mangroves would be accompanied by a mitigating strategy of putting sheet piles in place to ensure there was no flooding or breakaway. This simply means that coastal communities can look forward to more mangrove destruction, and that the government thinks it has done its duty provided it has man-made structures in place to address flooding. It is really not concerned about the other services mangroves provide in terms of the environment and the eco-system.
Mangroves were important, said Mr Edghill, but development must not be stymied. “At some stage, mangroves will be displaced,” he went on; “Man-groves will have to be removed.” He also said that the PPP/C’s approach to the development of the country was not to be “obstructionist” but “facilitating” of developmental projects. The question is, how exactly does the government see development, and the answer is this takes an industrial form associated with the oil industry where the coastal areas are concerned, mining in the interior, which it might be said has caused an entire mountain to disappear, and who knows what when the deep-water harbour and the road to Brazil go through.
We have had no conversation in this country on what development means, and whether green development is possible in many areas of our land, or even whether on our coast and lower riverain areas alternatives to the kind of shore-based facility to be constructed at Malgre Tout might not be possible. Minister Edghill’s simplistic and tunnel-vision view cannot be the last word on this subject. He says development is “structured”. If so, no one has seen a comprehensive plan of this so it can be discussed by communities and every other interested party – not that even if it exists the government wants to discuss it with anyone else. We should not be “prophets of doom”, says the Minister. Well, yes, we should be. The administration clearly cannot be trusted to take on board environmental concerns in respect of any project, and is not prepared, Escazú notwithstanding, to listen to communities and other stakeholders.
Perhaps it would help if President Ali appointed an Environment Minister who could relate to the public, but then again, if his government is really not prepared to inaugurate a national conversation on development, then he or she would no doubt be overridden by the Public Works Minister.
