The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) yesterday voided an application by Vista Trading and Logistics (Guyana) Inc for a cement facility at Le Ressouvenir on the East Coast even though it had earlier exempted it from an impact study.
The EPA decision to exempt Vista from an EIA had been appealed by to the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) and after a hearing for both sides a decision was pending.
The sudden decision of the EPA yesterday will be seen as a victory for members of the public and civil society activists who have in recent months intensified a campaign for transparency in EPA and EAB decisions. The EPA in particular has come under intense scrutiny over its decisions to exempt major projects from the EIA requirement including for the new bridge over the Demerara River.
Yesterday’s decision by the EPA has been communicated to Vista. The company had proposed to construct the facility at Tract A2 Felicity and Le Ressouvenir, East Coast Demerara.
Months ago, the EPA had decided that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was not needed for it to make its decision on the approval or rejection of the project. This decision did not find favour with the residents in the area and resulted in Singer Guyana Inc and Shahabudeen Ahmad appealing the decision before the EAB.
That hearing was held on October 7, 2021, at the EPA’s head office in Ganges Street, Greater Georgetown.
When contacted yesterday, the EPA’s Executive Director Kemraj Parsram told Stabroek News that they looked over the project summary and other aspects of the project and they found that it did not meet the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act, hence the decision to reject it. It is unclear what prompted the decision for a second look at the Vista proposal.
“We looked at the process and we have said to the EAB that we reviewed the project summary that they provided and the reasons we published does not meet the requirements of the act… In this case, the key thing was the publishing of our reasons and we also looked at everything – the summary and the reasons in the key decision making,” Parsram informed.
Speaking to the decision to not require an EIA, Parsram said that when an application is received, the Agency would screen and review it before deciding whether an EIA is needed to inform their decision.
“An EIA is just a tool, a decision-making tool to determine if the impacts are significant and to what extent they are significant. There are other means of making that decision as well, it is not solely dependent on an EIA and there are other things we look at.
“We are looking at improving the process. We looked at our decisions in terms of the publication of the notice that an EIA was not required and in the first place, we always said that having published that decision that an EIA was not required was in no way saying that it (the project) was approved,” Parsram clarified.
He further added that since his return to the helm of the EPA, he has been working to constantly improve the process at the agency while ensuring compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.
At the EAB hearing, Vista’s Managing Director, Vinoosh Dindyal had said that the company is not a batch plant and has no plans to get into that industry. He informed that the company is a Guyanese-owned one that has its core business as material handling.
He had indicated that the facility will see all of the work being done in an indoor warehouse facility, thus eliminating any effect on the environment. Those present at the hearing were informed by the managing director that the company intended to employ the use of filters and other technologies to ensure that dust and other emissions did not significantly affect the environment.
The facility at Le Ressouvenir was intended to receive, clear and deliver cement to customer locations in Guyana.
The sole appellant was represented by attorney Siand Dhurjon and he told EAB’s Chairman Omkar Lochan at the October 7 hearing that the EPA has a responsibility to ensure that any developmental activity, which has the ability to cause adverse effects on the environment, is properly assessed before any approval is granted. He pointed out that the non-requirement of EIA is slowly becoming a trend for the EPA.
He had argued that the chemicals within the cement that will be transferred and dealt with at the facility can be linked to fatal illnesses that include cancer, lung disease and other respiratory issues, and these substances, which will be in the middle of a residential neighbourhood, have the ability to kill those around.
