Govt. must provide list from which ERM was chosen — Environmentalists

Dec 13, 2021 News

---

…Selection process for Exxon’s EIA

By Davina Bagot

Kaieteur News – A group of Environmentalists has written to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requesting that it discloses the list of other qualified consultants, from which the Environmental Resources Management (ERM) was selected to conduct Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs).
In the document seen by this publication, the experts Simone Mangal-Joly, Alfred Buhlai, Vanda Radzik, Janette Bulkan, Denuta Radzik, Jerry Jailall, Alissa Trotz and Maya Trotz questioned the independence Esso Exploration Production Guyana Ltd.’s (EEPGL) Consultant, ERM, since records show that the ExxonMobil subsidiary has only ever selected the ERM from a list of consultants, to conduct all its Environmental Impact Assessments and management plans to date.

As a consequence, the Environmentalists asked the EPA to, “Please provide the evidence that ERM was shortlisted by the Environmental Protection Agency, among (other) consultants qualified to conduct EIAs, through the prescribed process in the Environmental Protection Act, which requires a review of their credentials and capacity by qualified international environmental organisations (and to) provide evidence of when this was done”.
Furthermore, the environmentalists asked, “How does the EPA view the ERM’s credibility considering this serious breach of professional ethics and public trust?”, given that the ERM admitted in an apology letter, in Kaieteur News on November 28, 2021, to placing the signature of People’ Progressive Party Executive Committee Member and well-known Environmental Consultant Mr. Shyam Nokta, on the cover of the public summary of the Yellowtail EIA, without his knowledge or consent. “How does the EPA view the ERM’s credibility considering this serious breach of professional ethics and public trust?”
Additionally, the group reasoned that the EEPGL applied for an Environmental Permit for Exxon’s fourth project, the Yellowtail Development on April 1, 2021. On May 9, 2021 the EPA indicated that an EIA was required. On June 28, 2021, the ERM was approved as the consulting firm to carry out the study, and on September 10, 2021, the EPA issued the Final Terms and Scope for the Yellowtail Development Environmental Impact Assessment. One month later, in October 2021, the ERM submitted its EIA document for the statutory 60-day public scrutiny process, which commenced on October 15, 2021.
In this regard, the experts questioned how the ERM could have possibly conducted a credible EIA study, according to statutory provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, within one month of the issuance of the Final Terms and Scope for the study.

“The public relies on knowledge of the Final Terms and Scope for the Yellowtail Development Environmental Impact Assessment to make an informed decision on the adequacy of the EIA presented by ERM. Without this the 60-day public comment period is defeated. Yet the Terms and Scope can be found nowhere. Contrary to basic professional practice, it is not disclosed in the Environmental Impact Assessment document submitted by ERM. Why is this information being withheld from the public by EEPGL and its firm ERM, and the EPA,” the group further enquired.
In this regard, the concerned environmentalists said that the Environmental Assessment Board cannot possibly consider that the current 60-day period for public scrutiny of this EIA is valid when the Final Terms and Scope remains hidden from the public.
“In fact, we submit that that entire process has been miscarried and call upon the EAB to declare it null and void and reset EEPGL’s application for Environmental Authorization. The ERM’s professional capacity, ethics, and independence from EEPGL, are in serious doubt and is evidenced in the poor quality EIA study that lacked original research on impacts, and the contempt ERM has shown for the people of Guyana by cobbling paper together to submit a lengthy EIA document in a mere month without even regard for disclosing the Terms of Scope for works in the document,” the group pointed out.
They added that the Yellowtail EIA process is a “travesty” that, among other things, brings into serious question, the conduct of the Environmental Protection Agency and the nature of its relationship with EEPGL and its consulting firm ERM. “The EPA must account to citizens for the transgressions it has condoned,” the experts argued.
They have since called for the EIA to be declared null and void, since the document fails to address critical subjects such as the impacts of the total waste brought to shore, and baseline data for Guyana’s fisheries sector, among others.

---

---