PIPE DREAMS OF TIMEHRI

Sep 03, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

 
The opposition finds itself in a knotty situation regarding the airport extension project. On the one hand, the opposition has approved appropriations in the Budget for this project, and on the other hand the opposition is raising concerns about the technical aspects of this project.
It seems to be a classical case of putting the cart before the horse for the opposition to have approved funding for this project only to now raise questions about the environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the social impact assessment (SIA) of the project.
One would have presumed that the opposition would have satisfied themselves on these questions before approving the estimates.
It must be recalled that a number of projects were initially cut from the 2012 Budget. Most were subsequently restored by supplementary provision after the funds from Norway had been released.
It therefore seems a bit strange that the funds for the airport project were approved without satisfactory answers being given to the opposition about the technical aspects or without any justification provided as to why there was no competitive bidding for the contract.
The opposition now finds itself in the unenviable position of having to rail against a project for which it has already approved expenditure in this year’s annual Budget.
This said, the concerns of the opposition cannot be dismissed lightly. Or can they?
One of the main concerns is the reported use of a twelve year old environmental impact assessment. Apparently, the argument was made that there was no need for a new environmental impact assessment for this project even though the last EIA was done 12 years ago. The opposition is concerned about the use of an outdated EIA.
But should they? The airport project is not a new project. A new airport is not being constructed; the plan is simply for the runaway to be lengthened and for other facilities to be put in place. What we have is a substantial expansion/ renovation but not the construction of a new airport.
There were always plans to expand the airport and since not much would have changed environmentally since 12 years ago, there seems to be no justification for a new EIA. In fact most of the lands that are going to be used for the expansion are already lands owned by the airport authority and therefore there hardly seems to be the need for a new environmental impact assessment for this expansion of the airport.
Where the difficulty may lie is with the social impact assessment because over the past 12 years the number of squatters has increased tremendously around the airport and last year’s incident involving a Caribbean Airlines plane shows that there is an urgent need to remove every single squatter from around the perimeter of the airport.
These squatters pose a threat not just to the plans for the expansion of the airport but to themselves. They are placing their lives at risk by residing so near to the airstrip. There needs to be safe perimeter around the airport and therefore these squatters will have to be removed.
The government did try to do this some years ago but was met by fierce resistance. In one emotional scene, the driver of a bulldozer refused to break down the house of a squatter.
The failure of the government over the years to stop the encroachment of persons around the airport has now created a serious problem because the numbers have grown and there is going to be the usual resistance to relocation. This issue is going to become a political one.
A way therefore has to be found to deal with the relocation issue because there is no way that any compromise can involve allowing the existing squatters to remain there. It is simply not in their safety to do so now much less when the runway is extended.
The government therefore should meet with the stakeholders, including the opposition, and hammer out a solution. It is going to take some time and there is going to be stern resistance to the government’s proposals but regardless of whether the airport is renovated, the squatters will have to be removed.
This still leaves unanswered the issue of whether a case has been made out for the expansion of the airport. Merely pointing to the length of the runway in Barbados and other countries does not necessarily mean that Guyana needs to expand its airport.
The other arguments justifying the need for the airport have been made before and are unconvincing. Guyana is never going to become a major air transport link with Brazil. We will have a major land link with that country but the idea of massive amounts of air cargo being passed through our airports to Brazil is a pipe dream that will never happen.
What will also never happen is Guyana being a hub for flights to West Africa. That is not going to happen either and it may not even be in Guyana’s interest for that to happen. It is much better if one of the larger countries such as Brazil or Venezuela undertake that role rather than a small poor nation like Guyana.
That link to West Africa was another pipe dream since independence and was never pursued with any seriousness. It is usually resurrected every time there is need to justify spending money on our airport.
And this brings us right back to the central question.  Does Guyana need an expanded airport? To answer that question what is needed is not an environmental impact assessment or a social impact assessment. What is needed is a feasibility study.
This is what the opposition should be debating. But how can they debate this now when they have already approved funding for the airport project?

---

---