Citizen and Environment and Democracy Advocate, Simone Mangal-Joly has penned an open letter to President Irfaan Ali strongly criticising the appoint-ees to the Environmental Assess-ment Board (EAB) which she suggests renders it incapable of professionally fulfilling its mandate due to glaring conflicts of interest.
In her letter dated March 10, 2023 she referred to Guyana’s lack of an independent Environ-mental Assessment Board, while noting, “… It is disappointing that rather than address the issues of conflicts of interest with government duties, you have doubled down and appointed a board with two of three members having direct conflicts of interest with their government duties. In addition, in a step backwards, the board is now entirely lacking any members with expertise in environmental protection, and it continues to lack non-governmental representation.” In view of her reasoning, she asked, “How is this justifiable when Guyana has capable professional expertise in academia and elsewhere?”
The letter pointed out that the Government of Guyana, Official Gazette, Legal Supplement B, of February10, 2023, had named a three-member EAB. Two of them, it stated, namely Dr Mahender Sharma, and Joslyn McKenzie, have duties central to the promotion of oil and gas and associated energy projects. And the third member, Dr Garvin Cummings, is a senior staff member of the Ministry of Agriculture who heads up the Hydro Met division.
Mangal-Joly told the president, “As you are aware, since the advent of oil production in Guyana, most of the matters brought before the EAB have had to do with projects directly related to areas within Dr Sharma’s and McKenzie’s remit.” She highlighted that Dr Sharma, named Chair of the EAB, is also the Head of the Guyana Energy Agency, which is charged with overseeing the development of all types of energy projects in Guyana, including fossil fuel-based projects. He was previously Chairman and is currently a Director of the Guyana Power and Light Inc (GPL). Meanwhile, McKenzie is the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Natural Resources, with this ministry having chief responsibility for promoting petroleum development, and the publicly funded US$2 billion-plus Gas-to-Energy project.
She pointed out that their employment situation and government duties result in an “obvious” lack of separation of powers with a “high” probability of conflict of interest in matters that come before the EAB. She contended that this unfortunate situation is currently unfolding in the matter of objections to the Envi-ronmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to waive an Envi-ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the 300MW Natural Gas Power Plant Project, which is an essential part of the Gas-to-Energy project.
Waiving
The letter recalled that on January, 07, the EPA announced that it had received an application for the construction of the power plant and was waiving the requirement for an EIA. The agency gave the public thirty days to appeal the decision to the EAB. It was noted that the applicant for the Power Plant project is the Guyana Power and Gas Inc. Further, the formal application documents submitted to the EPA, indicate that the application was made in conjunction with GPL, which provided the Public Project Summary that is legally required as part of the application for an environmental permit. The letter informed that on page 14 of the application form, the applicant (Guyana Power and Gas Inc) indicated that GPL was handing the consultancy for the Engineering, Procurement and Construction Request for Proposal (CPC RFC) for the Power Plant Project and that it would be able to provide information required in the application form when GPL made it available. Digging deeper, Mangal-Joly highlighted that Guyana Power and Gas Inc will be the largest supplier of energy to GPL, which will have to co-develop infrastructure for feeding energy from the power plant into the existing grid. It was also noted that Dr Sharma’s wife, Marcia Nadir-Sharma, is a Director of the Guyana Power and Gas Inc (the applicant).
It continued with its laying out of the facts, stating that shortly after its constitution on Feb 10, 2023, the EAB published a notice indicating that it will hold a public hearing into objections to the EIA waiver for the Power Plant Project on March 22, 2023. The author then points out, “Here you have two of the project proponents who are duty bound to promote the project, one who is director of an agency directly involved in the application, presiding over the appeals process for the power plant.” Then begs the questions, “How can the EAB provide a fair hearing when two of its three members are in compromising situations? Even if Dr. Sharma and Mr. McKenzie were to recuse themselves, which they clearly have not done to date, how could the remaining EAB member, Dr. Garvin Cummings, also a government employee, serve as sole adjudicator?
The missive strove to explain that the EAB is an appeals body that has a “sacred function” and “legal duty” to be impartial in its consideration of matters. The Environmental Protection Act mandates that members must be unencumbered by conflicting loyalties and duties. It further emphasised that without the aforementioned condition, there can be no public trust and confidence in the impartiality of the body or transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. “Lack of trust in fairness of the EAB’s decisions can feed conflicts and lead to lack of stability and predictability in the country’s environmental management system. This can not only adversely affect public interest but also investor interest, as companies can be exposed to legal and stakeholder risks.”
Interpreted
Mangal-Joly chided the president for what she interpreted as him saying one thing yet doing another.
“When I appealed to you on February 11, 2023, to constitute an independent EAB, it was with every confidence that you are genuine when you say that you are committed to the rule of law, transparency, accountability, democratic governance, and positive development for our country. Yet, evident here is a gap between what you say and what you do.”
She asserted that Ali’s decision to appoint members to the EAB who are burdened with conflicts of interest, while excluding non-governmental and suitably qualified environmental professionals, tells citizens and potential investors that the government is “not committed” to good governance and protecting the environment, and instead may prioritise business and special interests over public health and safety.
“You have missed an instance for positive development into a nation where government acts with propriety to fulfill its duty to protect the public interest and create a stable and predictable investment climate for businesses.”
As such, the letter urged the Head of State to reconsider his decision and appoint government and non-government members to the EAB who are free from conflicts of interest and have proven qualifications and commitment to sound environmental management. “This will help create a stable and predictable context for investors, protect the public interest, and enhance the government’s reputation for good governance,” the letter said.
