Investors and the government should balance development and maintaining mangroves

May 13, 2021 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

On commentaries and news reports of industrial development replacing mangroves, there can be a balance between the two without consequences to the environment. In fact, the environment can come out ahead if more mangroves are planted near to industrial sites. The country can’t remain underdeveloped and backward forever. It must pursue development especially that it has found natural resources that can transform Guyana. Other countries pursued development of natural resources at tremendous cost to the environment. The Western countries became developed while destroying vast swathes of the environment. Nevertheless, countries are increasingly conscious of the environment and climate change and so should Guyana to mitigate effects to the environment as it transitions into an industrialised economy.
Shore bases and other projects are critical for the development of Guyana. They create jobs and transform the economy. They come with a cost – an impact on the environment. In the case of the TriStar shore base, mangrove has been removed to make way for the project. They should not be permanently removed. Mangrove should be replanted in nearby areas.
I salute Chris Persaud for his courage to invest in Guyana. I also applaud his acknowledgement of the inadvertent removal of mangrove forestry as his company, Tri-Star, carries out construction on an oil and gas shore base on the Demerara River waterfront in Versailles. Mr. Persaud courageously said the matter will be addressed, suggesting he, like me, cares for the environment and will pursue mitigating measures.
The shore base is very important for transformation of West Demerara with its potential for job creation and business growth to provide affiliated services. It is the largest project in the area. It must be supported and similar projects encouraged. There are many benefits to be had from the development of West Bank Demerara and other locations in Berbice where mangroves are in the way. Government destroyed mangroves in several areas for its own projects without replacements. Private developers must make every effort to protect the environment. Investors and the government should pursue a balance between development and maintaining mangroves.
There are many benefits of mangrove colonies and preservation. Mangroves are extremely important for a balanced eco-system in coastal areas. They protect the coast from flooding as a natural sea defence. Their sturdy root systems protect against violent storm surges and high waves. They slow erosion. They are great for protection to coastal development, especially the kind of project being built in the area. The shore base will receive some protection with the presence of mangrove. So they must not be seen as ‘humbug’ to development.
Mangroves also serve as natural fish habitat, a source of fish (as well as crabs and shellfish) for local fishermen. They are economically sustainable. They also serve as carbon storage – they breathe in carbon and expunge oxygen. When leaves fall, they are buried under water storing carbon. That is good for the environment. Mangroves are the last barriers against climate change, combating global warming, and as such, every effort must be made to conserve them.
Mangrove encourage eco-tourism and therefore great for the economy. Environmentalists and eco-tourists visit countries with rich mangroves, bringing important dollars to their economies. Sustainable tourism offers a stimulus to preserve existing mangrove areas, with potential to generate income for local inhabitants.
Mangroves are homes to birds for nesting and breeding; they attract bird watching tourists like me. Mangroves have been disappearing in country after country, including in Guyana as they are increasingly chopped for firewood and other uses. And now, they are being removed to make way for oil industrialisation. It is important that we preserve as much mangrove and natural habitat as possible in Guyana as the nation pursues development.
The Minister of Works and Infrastructure, Bishop Juan Edghill, said at a press conference that cutting down the mangrove is necessary for industrial development. He said man-made sea defences would replace mangrove to protect against flooding. Such projects would be very costly and not as effective as natural mangrove trees. I think there can be a balance between manmade development (shore base) and mangrove preservation. New mangrove can be planted in areas just outside of the shore base.
The country must proceed with development and industrialists like Mr. Krishna Persaud should be encouraged to fund shore base development. But I don’t think we have to choose between protecting the environment and pursuing development. Industrialists should try to preserve as much of the coastal mangrove as possible. Otherwise, it would lead to disruption in fish catch of communities and pose a serious threat to livelihoods and communities on the coast.
But it must be acknowledged that mangroves have limited life as seen in West Coast from Ruimzeigt to Vreed-en-Hoop and other locations where they have had to be replaced or regenerated. Engineered structures have longer life protecting coasts allowing for livelihood of people. Where mangroves have been removed, they must be replanted in a nearby area.
Mr. Krishna Persaud has promised that the issue of mangrove removal will be addressed. Government should take him up on the offer. Government should provide the necessary support and encouragement towards this objective. Perhaps, government can consider planting mangrove in nearby vicinity that would not affect the onshore base as well as other areas where mangrove is being depleted.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram

---

---