Veteran engineer Charles Ceres says that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is operating in breach of its own governing Act in key areas, including the denial of the need for impact assessments for major projects and the pool of qualified consultants it should enlist to undertake these.
Ceres, in an interview with the Sunday Stabroek, said that while he believes that aspects of the Act need updating to cater for Guyana’s developing oil and gas sector, the current Act is enough to guide the safe execution of projects, if only it were enforced.
“I think we have a very comprehensive and very (well) thought out Environmental Protection Act, the problem, however, is the failure of the agency to adhere to the Act. There are several areas that are obvious,” he told the Sunday Stabroek. “But everything that has been taking place with the EPA since 1996 (when the Act was made) has been in contravention of the Act… including projects I have worked on…No project in Guyana has been done in accordance with the Act — at least I cannot identify any — including all we did,” he added.
Key to ensuring proper and legal oversight, Ceres contends, is first having a list of certified consultants for project works. Currently anyone could be placed on the EPA list for a “mere US$40”. “The Environmental Protection Act No. 11 of 1996, states under Part II – Establishment and Functions of the Agency – ‘In the exercise of its functions the agency shall (a) compile and amend from time to time, with the assistance of internationally recognized environmental groups, a list of persons who have the qualifications and experience to carry out environmental impact assessments’”, he emphasized from a document he had compiled many years ago.
“Before anything, the list of consultants must be compiled. It has never been done since 1996. So what has been done is that the EPA created a substitution of that by-law and anyone can be placed on the list for, at first a US$15 fee, and now US$40. But most of the people have not satisfied the intent of the Act. The intent of the Act was that consultants have an evaluation conducted by an internationally recognized group,” he added.
A licensed engineer and holder of a BSc. in Civil Engineering, a Master’s Degree in Geotechnical Engineering and Groundwater Hydrology, Ceres said that many of the infrastructural projects being undertaken are a reinforcement of incompetence. “In Guyana, we seem to have a culture where we focus on the reinforcement of incompetence in every single thing we do here. So there is no desire to reinforce anything, people just reinforce incompetence. I don’t even think people know that they are doing things incorrectly and there is no expert oversight to guide them,” he posited.
Former EPA Head Dr. Vincent Adams was flayed by Ceres because he reasoned that both of them worked in the United States as engineers and knew that laws had to be followed or face the penalties and still nothing was done to rectify the situation.
“I hear people like Vincent Adams talking about all that he did at the EPA, and he is my friend, but this is something that he reinforced at the EPA and he is the person that raised the fee from US15 to US $40. So I don’t understand how you can come and tell me that you have all this experience all over the world and it seems the first thing you did not do was read the Act,” he chided.
“I, like him, have worked in the United States and the first thing I would have done is read the Act. Each state [in the U.S] has different regulations but Guyana is one country. I want him to tell me where in the Act it says you must pay $15 or $40 or any money to be on the list of consultants. The Act is clear how you should be on the list. Breaking the law is breaking the law. In Guyana we have this sense about who is breaking the law. But how is it fair for a poor man to break the law and gets jail then you have people breaking this law and are never called to task for it. What is the difference?” he questioned. Ceres said that when qualified persons, not firms or companies, are chosen, they can in turn provide the oversight needed for other projects, since the pool will have experts to choose for the various areas. “So the entire process of how things are done at the EPA are contravened because of the failure to adhere to this first critical aspect,” he said.
‘Predicated’
Ceres said that he would not single out any large project as his reasoning governs all, but criticized the EPA for again breaching the Act when it gives permission for Environmental Management Plans (EMPs) in substitution for Environ-mental Impact Assessments (EIAs). “A critical element mandated is that all Environmental Impact Assessments must be predicated on some level of risk assessment. You don’t see any assessment of risk in any of what you see coming out of the EPA, in terms of their decision-making process. If you go through the Act, you would see there is no place for an [EMP]. The Act clearly states that you do an EIA or you don’t do an EIA. The Act is clear about that; there is nothing in between. The Act has no provisions for this EMP… None!” he said.
“However, the guidelines for different sectors, have different elements of the Environmental Impact Assessment process. One of those elements is the EMP. So the Act doesn’t have any provision for preparation of an EMP. The EMP in the EIA, however, is predicated on an assessment and identification of impacts and risks of the project. If the EPA is going to make a determination that there is no need for an EIA, how do they configure an appropriate EMP without knowing what are the risks and consequences of the project?” he questioned.
Using the new Demerara Habour Bridge project as an example, Ceres said that it is incomprehensible that an EIA would not be required and be substituted for by an EMP. “How can you say no EIA when you do not know the risks? That bridge is high and there will be emissions to the communities below where the wind takes it. How do we know what will happen and how that affects anyone without first carrying out that study? What are the human health impacts and ecological risks?” he questioned.
Risks, he explained, can be divided into three specific components. These components are Risk Analyses, Risk Assessment and Risk Management. “The reality is that risks are associated with any action. These risks include monetary risks and environmental risks. Environmental risks are risks to both human health and ecological risks,” he said.
There are several different methodologies for determining risks and the preferred methodology is most often guided by regulatory constraints but in Guyana this, too, does not happen as much of the regulations are not yet crafted. “You have laws and then you have documents that are regulations under the Act. The EPA has that provision but it has never been done. It has a provision for the Minister to make regulations. The Act is clear; the Minister in performing his functions has the right to make regulations. The Act says that clearly,” he stressed.
Other engineering experts have said that the EPA erred when it opted not to request an EIA for the new Demerara Harbour Bridge since the information contained in such a study is integral to how firms would propose a design. Environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly wrote to the EAB – the body which determines appeals of decisions by the EPA – objecting to the EPA’s decision while pointing out that it was a reversal of an earlier position that acknowledged the need for one. The decision against an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment has been seen by some as intended to enable the speedy construction of the bridge. Mangal-Joly contended that the EPA has also not provided the reasons why it determined that this activity would not have a significant impact and is therefore exempt from an EIA. And when projects are objected to by the public and formal complaints lodged to the EPA, Ceres said that the agency’s hearings of them by its EAB Board is also illegal.
“The EAB has taken on responsibilities outside of Schedule 2, such as hearing appeals and objections to people’s submissions of EMPS. That is not the role of the EAB. The Act is clear about what the EAB is supposed to do, in Schedule 2. The EPA has within it what is called an Environmental Appellate Tribunal (EAT). It has never been established. So when people have these appeals, it should go to the EAT. The EPA has to first fix its own house…,” Ceres said.
