Dear Editor,
I refer to the article titled, “EPA withdraws revised impact assessment guidelines – to consult with public after concerns raised” (SN June 26). Today, I guardedly laud this decision and action. From now, I emphasize that there is little that is confidence-inducing about Guyana’s EPA, in its current state of malaise and political misdirection, as well as its deliberate jellylike consistency on the vital things of Guyana. As most Guyanese with a whiff of discernment in them are quick to recognize, the EPA today is a passive, hamstrung entity, one lacking the needed skills and strength to apply brakes on the business bigshots. Things are so unpalatable at the EPA that I spare its acting head today: she has her orders, and she has followed them well.
It is against this backdrop that there came this announcement of the withdrawing of “revised impact assessment guidelines” to facilitate “public concerns.” Several thoughts surfaced. First, there had to be more than a few Guyanese who stirred themselves into actually registering their alarms with the EPA. Second, among that set of citizens, must be a subset that is not be trifled with, because they will rock boats and make waves elsewhere. Perhaps, all over and loudly and persistently, too; thus, give them a listening. Third, though previously guilty of these failures, I do so again: I give the EPA (and PPP leaders) the benefit of the doubt, in willingness to accept this business of “consult with public after concerns raised” as genuine and not just for the show of it. Fourth, and to elaborate: that it is not for the record that public consultations did occur with open minds and receptive ears leading to meaningful revisions and safeguards being put in place in response to anxieties and constructive criticisms about deficiencies in the original revisions. Fifth, if this is a bona fide public consultation, then it must reach the widest public audience, with a series of such consultations, at convenient times and locations. Sixth, that the final revision of the revision involve a handful of non-EPA people, who could bring balance and fairness (and teeth) to the revisions before they take effect.
Editor, I now proceed to what I put forward must be the key: whatever those revisions, if any, of the withdrawn revised EIA guidelines end up being, they must not be simply paper procedures. I do appreciate “guidelines” are exactly what they say, and nothing more. It is sort of discretionary on the part of the involved constituency, a kind of nice-to-have, a feel-good flavouring. To reiterate: those post public consultation revised guidelines cannot be, as a matter of compliance, it is there on paper, the people were listened to, so it’s all over. The oversight is just the beginning, and the EPA must be strong enough, fearless enough, and independent enough to stand up for Guyana and say: this is what it is going to be, regardless of which gargantuan foreign company or domestic commercial demigods are involved.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall
