Ahead of a hearing this week on a challenge to the decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against requiring an environmental study for the new Demerara Harbour Bridge, environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly has reported that the regulatory body has failed to provide critical information needed to make a decision on the project.
In a letter dated March 26, 2022 to Executive Director of the EPA Khemraj Parsram, Mangal-Joly said that the information provided was grossly inadequate since it was just a copy of the Ministry of Public Work’s application for construction of the bridge. She said that after reviewing the document, she realised that it does not provide the basic information on the project.
“Among other things, there is no design attached. The application does not provide any information on the scale, geographic placement, and relative layout of infrastructure, access roads to which the application refers, drainage systems that would have to be modified as stated in the application, or properties in the right of way that would have to be demolished. There is also no information on the locations, sequencing, and duration of proposed construction activities, including assembling works required for the bridge, access roads, the extent and location of dredging of the Demerara River, pile driving, or demolition works to which the application refers. There is no information on the traffic capacity of the bridge, traffic projection or projected noxious emissions by type and amount during the operation of the bridge,” she highlighted.
The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) has scheduled the hearing for Tuesday at the Cara Lodge in Quamina Street, Georgetown from 2 pm.
Mangal-Joly, who is also a geologist, has been consistently arguing that without the design of the new bridge, the EPA is in no position to decide on its impact.
The environmentalist reminded Parsram the absence of critical pieces of information makes it impossible to draw conclusions as to the environmental impact of the project. She also reminded him that the EAB hearing is just one working day away and that it would be “unfair” to have that hearing without disclosing the relevant information upon which the EPA relied in making its decision to waive an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), especially as this basic information ought to have been part of the application for an environmental permit and formed part of the Public Register since November 19, 2021, when the environmental body stamped the date of receipt of the application.
She also drew attention to the fact that the EPA waived the EIA only two days after receiving the application.
“I note that the EPA’s decision to waive the EIA was remarkably swift, issuing a public notice of the waiver on November 23, 2021, only two working days after receipt of the application. You therefore must have been in possession of all relevant information at the time the application was made.
“In my email dated March 23, I requested copies of the application as well as all other particulars you relied upon to make your decision (as per Sections 3 and 36 of the Environmental Protection Act). If you are in possession of the relevant information, please provide it without delay,” Mangal-Joly said in her letter.
In a similarly dated letter to the EAB, Mangal-Joly highlighted the EPA’s non-disclosure of information in time for the hearing. She pointed out that the information would have been before the EPA prior to its November 23, 2021 decision.
“…The EAB’s hearing by law must be based on that decision, made at that point in time, with information the EPA had before it then. You would note that international best practice standards for such hearings are 14-21 days after the statutory appeal period closes. Indeed, the 2020 EIA Guidelines, which were suspended by the EPA, specified a 14-day period for the EAB to act. We are now three months away from December 23, 2021, when the 30-day appeal period elapsed,” Mangal-Joly stated.
She reminded that by waiving the EIA, the Environmental Protection Agency is denying stakeholders their right to participation adding that the decision before the EAB is one that is “weighty” and should not be taken in the absence of critical information.
“The Environmental Protection Act gives the EAB the statutory authority to determine whether the EPA acted rationally in waiving an EIA and whether that decision should be reversed. The EAB cannot merely assess whether the technical decisions were sound but must also assess whether the EPA acted properly, given the relevant facts it possessed at the time that it decided,” she said.
The environmentalist further told the EAB that the determination of whether the EPA took an informed decision when it waived the impact assessment, now rests with it since the information on the bridge design and works remains absent.
“The proposed hearing does not obviate your responsibility to make this determination, as the finding by itself could provide you with adequate evidence to decide that the Agency’s waiver of an EIA is unacceptable. At the very least, it would be an abuse of public time if this information were not available to yourself and the appellants before the hearing,” she concluded.
In November of last year, the EPA restarted the process for public objections to its decision not to require an environmental study. In explaining its decision, the EPA reasoned that even though protected mangroves will have to be removed the risks are considered medium and as a result it proposed mitigation measures.
The design of the bridge has not yet been made publicly available since the government is still wrapping up negotiations with China Railway Construction Corporation International. Earlier this month, Public Works Minister Juan Edghill told Stabroek News that government is anticipating closing the deal soon.
