In November last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice stating that the Works Services Group of the Ministry of Public Works had submitted an application to the EPA for an environmental authorisation to construct a new Demerara Harbour Bridge between Nandy Park, East Bank Demerara (EBD) and La Grange on the West Bank of Demerara.
The notice then expectedly said that in accordance with the EPA Act “an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required before a decision can be made to approve or reject the proposed project, since this development may have significant impacts on the environment”. Members of the public were then given 28 days to make submissions to the EPA setting out the questions and matters they wanted addressed in the EIA for the bridge.
Nine months later, in a breathtaking and unexplained about-face, the EPA published another notice stating that pursuant to Section 11(2) of the EPA Act it had screened the ministry’s application for an environmental permit for the bridge project and had “determined that it will not significantly affect the environment. Consequently, the proposed project is approved by the EPA. This is a notice of exemption from the conduct of an EIA in accordance with Section 11 of the Act”.
Compounding the crudity of the manoeuvre, the notice made no reference to the earlier one requiring the EIA nor did it declare that the previous notice had been superseded and this will likely lead to legal questions about which decision is properly in effect. That is, however, a relatively minor matter compared to the gravity of the withdrawal of the need for an EIA and what that means for the country going forward.
One should first address the obvious questions. Having issued a notice in November 2020 requiring an EIA how can the EPA simply reverse it peremptorily nine months later? Has the EPA taken leave of its responsibilities or suffered a calamitous loss of institutional memory in nine months? Its recently appointed head, Mr Kemraj Parsram must provide a public explanation particularly in light of the fact that Guyana has signed and extolled the virtues of the regional Escazú Agreement on the right of access to information about the environment, public participation in environmental decision-making, environmental justice and a healthy and sustainable environment.
If some explanation is forthcoming from the EPA, it could mask an even larger and more serious problem fecund with implications for governance. Keen observers of the conduct of this PPP/C government over the last year would have detected an impatience with perceived impediments to grandiose infrastructural and other plans. There is nothing wrong with impatience. However, where such impatience seeks to subvert legislation that underpins the rule of law or deflects from good governance then there are serious problems ahead. The undermining of the EPA and its rules has a long history under former PPP/C governments where projects clearly requiring EIAs were fast-tracked without one. That must not happen again. As the minister responsible for the environment, one expects that President Ali will seek to urgently enquire into this EIA travesty.
It is clear that the government wants this new bridge over the Demerara River built in short order. That was evident in advice earlier this year to potential contractors that the project has to be completed in 24 months, a task that doesn’t appear possible considering the extent of the investigations of the area and the actual work that would have to be done. The reversal of the need for an EIA would be seen as aiding this enterprise for the rapid completion of the project.
The government and its cheerleaders in the private sector must be aware that any injudicious decisions in a project as large as this, potentially US$400m in value, can have serious repercussions in not only the environmental and social impact but the actual construction and functioning of the structure.
Further, investors and international contractors would be unnerved by arbitrary, inexplicable and perhaps politically inspired alteration of crucial regulatory decisions. That is usually a sign that the rules will not be evenly and fairly employed and shrewd investors detect that right away. The far from welcoming business climate here could do without further agitation. The international financial institutions and donor countries that intend financing or collaborating on large infrastructural projects may also begin to harbour doubts about the framework in which decisions are made.
The unjustified and unjustifiable removal of Dr Vincent Adams as Head of the EPA is again reflected in this latest absurdity from the EPA, which given its pivotal role in the oil and gas sector, would raise further qualms in the public about what may lie further down the road given the convergence between the government and oil extractors on the way ahead.
One of the functions of the EPA under its governing Act is “to ensure that any developmental
activity which may cause an adverse effect on the natural environment
be assessed before such activity is commenced and that such adverse
effect be taken into account in deciding whether or not such activity should be authorized”.
In it bare-bones summary of the project on the EPA website, the ministry says: “The replacement bridge will span the Demerara River from Nandy Park to La Grange, upstream and in close proximity to the existing harbour bridge. This location shall allow an easy connection to the existing access roads on the West Bank of Demerara and new access roads will be constructed on the East Bank of Demerara. The replacement structure will be a fixed four-lane bridge with a vertical clearance over the channel of approximately 50m above the maximum tide level. The proposed design allows for the bridge to be connected to the main road network through road approaches connecting it to the West Bank Public Road and the imminent Mandela to Eccles road, respectively”.
When one makes the barest contemplation of the new structure that is intended over the Demerara River as provided by the ministry, it is clear that an EIA is required and this is the direction in which the EPA must proceed.
