Having received appeals against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to not require impact assessments for the replacement of the existing Demerara Harbour Bridge, and the Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd (EEPGL) 12-Well Exploration and Appraisal Programme in the offshore Canje Block, the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) on Friday said that public hearings for those projects will be held in October.
In a notice to the public, the EAB said that it will be conducting a public hearing on October 12, 2021, into appeals submitted against: the Work Services Group, Ministry of Public Works – replacement of the Existing Demerara Harbour Bridge, to be located at Nandy Park, East Bank Demerara and La Grange, West Bank Demerara.
Similarly, the EAB said that they will also be conducting another public hearing on October 14, 2021, into appeals submitted against: Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Ltd’s 12-Well Exploration and Appraisal (E&A) Drilling Programme, Canje Block, offshore Guyana.
Both hearings will be held at the Agency on Ganges Street, Sophia, at 2 pm.
In accordance with Section 18(3) of the Environmental Protection Act, Cap. 20:05, Laws of Guyana, the EAB shall conduct public hearings into all appeals submitted against the EPA’s decision not to require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project.
The Public Hearing will involve representations from the appellants, the developer, and other key stakeholders; after which, the EAB will deliberate on the findings and prepare a report with its decision confirming or setting aside the EPA’s decision.
Earlier in September, environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly submitted appeals to the EAB objecting to the EPA’s decision not to require an impact assessment for both projects. Regarding the new bridge over the Demerara River, she pointed out that it was a reversal of an earlier position that one was needed.
Mangal-Joly in her correspondence of August 27, 2021, to the EAB – the body which determines appeals of decisions by the EPA – also pointed out that the EPA was now describing the bridge as a replacement and not a new one, as it had previously done, even though entirely different construction and engineering methodologies were involved.
The EPA had prompted shock in some circles when on August 18 it said that an application for an environmental permit for the new bridge over the Demerara had been received and in its judgement it will not require an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The public was then given 30 days to consider the EPA decision and whether an appeal should be lodged with the EAB.
Mangal-Joly lodged her appeal on three grounds: (1) the decision contradicted an earlier EPA decision for exactly the same project; (2) the information provided in the Project Summary was grossly deficient and does not enable the public to exercise its right to rationally consider the proposed activity; and (3) the reasons for the EPA’s decision that the impacts would be insignificant and not require an EIA were not provided.
She pointed out that the EPA’s notice of December 13, 2020, for the same project had stated that the effects would be significant and thus an EIA would be required.
“The EPA has since, with no explanation or material changes to the project, published an altered Project Summary and removed the EIA requirement”, she said.
The environmentalist pointed out that the first Project Summary published by the EPA in November 2020 described the project as “The New Demerara Harbour Bridge”. However, in the August 2021 Project Summary, the title of the project has been changed to: “Replacement of the Existing Demerara Harbour Bridge.”
Meanwhile, in her letter dated August 28, 2021, and seen by Stabroek News, Mangal-Joly stated that the EPA had not provided any information on the proposed activities via a project summary as is usually done with other applications.
On August 8, 2021, the EPA stated that it had received an application for environmental authorisation from EEPGL regarding the project, and had determined that an impact assessment will not be required.
Additionally, she said the EPA also failed to communicate its reasons for not requiring an EIA for the project. Mangal-Joly contended that the effects of seismic surveys and the risk of a well blowout during exploratory drilling are not insignificant and are well documented.
