Earlier this week, on February 26, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) said it was vindicated in court when it successfully fought off a challenge to the issuance of an Environmental Permit related to the Liza 1 Petroleum Development project.
A release from the EPA yesterday said that Justice Damone Younge refused to grant the Orders requested by activists, Danuta Radzik and Sinikka Henry, who on August 08, 2022 had filed an application alleging that the EPA erred in deciding to renew the Environmental Permit related to the Liza 1 Petroleum Development project.
Further, Radzik and Henry also contended that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) needed to be done before any such renewal, and that no renewed environmental permit should contain any new conditions. The two also argued that renewed permits should have the same conditions as the previous version, only with a new expiration date. They also alleged that the EPA had breached the law by not providing them with information which they had demanded.
In response, the EPA contended that it acted in full compliance with the law when the decision was taken to renew Environmental Permit 20160705-EEDPF. In particular, the agency clarified that the law did not mandate EIAs during the renewal process as this would be absurd given the nature and intent of EIAs. The EPA also contended that it was competent to include such conditions as are reasonably necessary for human health and the environment in renewed Permits. The Agency, the release added, was adamant that it had not in any way failed to observe its duty to make required information available to the public in accordance with the Environ-mental Protection Act Cap 20:05. It was also pointed out that the law had deliberately and intentionally set out what information could be accessed, by whom, at what stage, and in what manner.
The EPA was represented by attorneys Frances Carryl, Shareefah Parks, and Niomi Alsopp, while the Applicants were represented by attorneys Abiola Wong-Inniss, and Melinda Janki.
After considering the arguments and evidence before it, the court found in favour of the EPA. In delivering her judgment, the release said that Justice Younge took care to point out that it is for the EPA, the body tasked with the management and protection of the natural environment, to determine whether during the application process, any proposed project would impact the environment and therefore require an EIA – there is nothing in the provisions of the Act which provides that an EIA is required for the issuance of an environmental permit.
Justice Younge also made it clear that when examining the regime for applications for an environmental permit, consideration cannot only be given to Section 11 of the Act or Regula-tion 22 alone, but all the provisions of the Act and Regulations must be looked at in a holistic manner so that the intention of Parliament can be discerned.
The EPA welcomed this judgment as a reminder to all that it is a legally established entity mandated to act in accordance with its originating law. The Agency also encouraged members of the public to participate in the environmental decision-making process by making lawful, meaningful and intelligent requests and contributions, in good faith. In this way, it assured, it is able to judiciously meet its mandate of ensuring the effective management of Guyana’s environment as well as the sustainable use of its natural resources, the release added.
