Accusations against the EPA by engineer, Charles Ceres

May 11, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The Environmental Protection Act No. 11 of 1996 (EP Act) clearly states under Part II –
Establishment and Functions of the Agency – “In the exercise of its functions the agency shall (a) compile and amend from time to time with the assistance of internationally recognized environmental groups a list of persons who have the qualifications and experience to carry out environmental impact assessment”. I served on the very first Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) established in Guyana and am aware that neither the EPA nor the EAB is authorized to circumvent the EP Act. In spite of the legally established requirement, detailed above, however, the EPA, under the jurisdiction of Executive Director Ramdass and Environmental Management Division Director Seebarran, has continually ignored this mandate of the EP Act by compiling and distributing a list of consultants and firms who, in their opinion, are qualified to conduct environmental impact assessments. This clearly contravenes the intent of the EP Act.  The clear intent of the EP Act to identify persons (not firms) who have the qualifications and experience to carry out environmental impact assessment” raises serious questions about  Directors Ramdass and Seebarran.
Ground Structures Engineering Consultants Inc. (GSEC) has the largest portfolio of environmental compliance project in Guyana. GSEC has completed several ESIAs in Guyana including the Maple Creek Diamond Mine, Amaila Falls Hydropower Project, Skeldon Estate expansion, Peters Mine, Aurora Gold Mine, Marudi Mountain Hard Rock Mine, Alluvial Mining at Marudi Mountain, Sandspring Resources Gold and Copper Mine, Petroleum Refinery at Crab Island and for the Haags Bosch Landfill. Environmental compliance undertaken by GSEC include audits for Omai Gold Mines for Cambior Resources/Iamgold, the privatization of Linmine and Bermine for the Adam Smith Institute, the closure of the Omai Linden yard and for Reunion Manganese.
We are currently involved in providing environmental compliance services to several projects in Guyana including Guyana Goldfields, Sun and Sand Resources, Romanex and to Ion Geoventures as sub-consultants. GSEC has also provided environmental compliance services to Chevron for gas stations located in Guyana, Surinam and Grenada and has served as sub consultants to Environmental Resources Management (ERM) on several projects in Guyana and Surinam including the red mud stacking proposed for the Suralco. GSEC has also provided training to EPA staff in exposure assessment and to the GGMC staff in earth and rock slope stability. In spite of the experience and qualifications demonstrated by successful completion of the projects listed above, Ramdass and Seebarran have not seen it fit to include GSEC on the list of firms which they have identified as being qualified to conduct ESIAs in Guyana. While the compilation and circulation of this list continues to contravene the intent of the EP Act, both Ramdass and Seebarran compound their action by instructing firms, to whom the list is provided, that no firm not identified on that list would be acceptable to the EPA. It can be stated with fear of contradiction that neither Ramdass nor Seebarran are adequately competent in the diverse range of disciplines required to prepare a proper ESIA to make that determination.
The actions of both Ramdass and Seebarran is indicative of a continuation of the policy articulated by Dr. Luncheon, during the Jagdeo/Kissoon libel trial, which clearly established that  certain Guyanese are not qualified to work in certain areas in Guyana. The EPA under Ramdass epitomizes the implementation of the PPP policy, as articulated by Luncheon. Ramdass and Seebarran are Mr. Editor obviously not content with the effectiveness of their policy at the EPA and are now apparently focused on extending that policy to the entire country by identifying firms/individuals as being qualified to conduct ESIAs with the clear intent of excluding the most qualified firm in Guyana simply being.
GSEC are consequently hereby requesting both Ramdass and Seebarran to publicly state their basis for contravening the AP Act and to further identify the criteria they have used to determine the qualifications and experience of persons (or firms) to carry out environmental impact assessment. It is expected that these individuals will justify their position by detailing of list of projects on which these firms have provided environmental compliance services. It would also be helpful if Ramdass and Seebarran can justify their ability to identify suitably qualified individuals/firms by specifying exactly the area of environmental compliance in which these individuals have experience which mirrors that of GSEC. We trust no cries of “witch hunting” will be heard now that Ramdass and Seebarran are being asked to address their failure to adhere to the professional standards associated with the responsibilities they have been tasked to discharge.
Charles P. Ceres

---

---