Environmentalist boycotts EPA review board in protest for fair, independent body

Jul 02, 2022 News

---

Kaieteur News – The lone appellant that objected to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) waiver to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for two, 12 wells exploration campaigns in the Canje and Kaieteur Blocks of Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) has boycotted the public hearing as she lacks confidence in the review committee—the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB).

The EAB is mandated by the Environmental Protection Act to conduct public hearings into all appeals made and is also tasked with recommending whether an EIA must be accepted, amended or rejected; whether a permit should be issued by the Agency as well as, the terms and conditions that should be included in an environmental permit.
ExxonMobil through its local subsidiary, Esso Exploration and Production Guyana Limited (EEPGL), had submitted the application to the EPA for the 12 well campaigns, stating that the activities are likely to have adverse effects on the environment. Even though this was clearly outlined in the oil company’s project summary, the EPA determined that the activities did not require an EIA.
To this end, environmentalist Simone Mangal-Joly, objected to the decision to waive an environmental impact study.
She was scheduled to argue her reasons on Thursday, however in a letter to the Chairperson of the EAB, Pradeepa Bholanauth, dated June 30, Mangal-Joly informed that she lacks confidence that the EAB can provide a fair and impartial hearing, or an independent decision based on technical considerations.
As such, she said “I am boycotting your hearing in protest for a fair and independent EAB.”
Kaieteur News understands that as a result of Mangal-Joly’s boycott, ExxonMobil Guyana, the EAB and EPA were left alone to discuss the development of the scheduled activities.
Others too have joined the call for an independent body to hear the appeals with one such person being Energy Technologist, Mr. Alfred Bhulai.
Mangal-Joly was keen to note in her missive that she is not withdrawing her objection against the agency’s decision to waive the EIAs.
In fact, she told the Board that it is already furnished with adequate technical information that should guide the assessment of the choice to waive the studies.
The environmentalist reasoned that, “despite claims to the contrary, the effect of seismic surveys as well as drilling cannot be ascertained without a comprehensive impact study, as five years into oil production this country still cannot pinpoint the spatial location of sensitive environmental receptors, including offshore reefs, nurseries, and migration routes for fish and other marine life.”
Additionally, the cumulative effect of all production, seismic surveys, and exploratory drilling going on the offshore environment has not been assessed.
She noted too that “baseline surveys on fisheries and monitoring data on the effects of all offshore activities do not exist for many key receptors.”
According to Mangal-Joly, each new project approved by the EPA adds additional burden to the ‘uncounted’ and ‘unvalued’ marine environment and resources of the country; however the EPA has failed to prove to the Guyanese people that the burden is acceptable.
For instance, she pointed out that “nowhere in its Screening Reports for the Kaieteur and Canje proposed drilling activities does it even have a proper spatial representation of the areas that will be affected and/or temporal overlapping representation of times of the year and seasons, showing how drilling activities and various supply boats etc. might affect fishing vessels, fish and marine migratory routes etc. Its conclusions that the effects will be negligible are not backed by scientific proof. One would hope that the EAB would strive to see a higher standard of scientific data and reasoning.”
Rigging the process
In defending her decision to boycott Thursday’s hearing, the environmentalist said, “…the EAB has already indulged the EPA in rigging the process. This hearing will only serve as a charade of due process, giving the false impression that our country’s legal and democratic environmental decision-making process is working.”
On the contrary, Mangal-Joly argued that the system is “broken” and until the EAB operates in an independent manner as prescribed by the Environmental Protection Act, such hearings will amount to an abuse of the public’s time, perversely serving as a means of democratizing the disempowerment of the population.
She was keen to note, “I have not arrived at this conclusion lightly or from afar. It is a result of my first-hand experience with the way in which the EAB has been handling appeals over the past year, including the Demerara Harbour Bridge EIA waiver appeal, and the way you have been handling the Exxon Mobil’s well drilling applications to date. The EAB has consistently and completely failed to meet best practice standards for addressing appeals on EIA waivers in a timely and impartial manner. It allows the EPA inordinate amounts of time to develop reasons for decisions that by law must be present in full at the time the EPA makes, and announces a decision to waive an EIA, and triggers the 28-day public appeals period under the Environmental Protection Act. The public must be able to review these reasons against the EPA’s decision to decide whether the decision should be challenged.”
According to her, the EPA has never published its reasons for waiving an EIA at the time it makes its decision, but is afforded months to prepare these reasons.
In addition to that, the environmentalist noted that “the EPA is being indulged to facilitate Applicants to withdraw and resubmit applications to suit its intention of waiving EIAs, making a mockery of the Environmental Protection Act and the rule of law.”
For instance, she drew reference to the fact that the EPA posted its decision to waive an EIA for Exxon’s Kaieteur Block drilling application on September 24, last year, triggering a 28 days period for citizens to assess its reasons and object by October 28, 2021.
Mangal-Joly said, she objected to the waiver on October 22 last year, but instead of hosting the hearing within two to six weeks, in accordance with practices around the world, the EAB has only now decided to conduct the meeting.
The environmentalist argued, “in the time that the EAB did not hold the hearing, it indulged the EPA to publish another notice months later on March 7, 2022 stating that it had received an application from Exxon Mobil for the same activity in Kaieteur Block—as if Exxon Mobil had never applied in the first place and a statutory appeal process had not already been triggered under the Environmental Protection Act!
She was adamant, the EPA published this notice in March without any reasons in the newspapers, and instead directed the public to a Screening Report, which contained the reasons. That screening report was not made available to the public on the EPA’s website until on April 5, 2022, a mere few days before the second 28-day public comment period expired.
“I wrote to the EAB pointing out the unfairness of this situation and the EAB ignored this. Instead, the EAB was keen to point out to me that I had to meet the new deadline to object yet again!”
As such, she concluded that the EAB allowed the EPA to simply disregard the statutory process that was triggered on September 22, 2021, plus it gave the EPA seven months to come up with reasons for its decision to waive the EIA! In what world would this be considered due process that is impartial and independent?”
In giving yet another example, Mangal-Joly pointed to the EPA’s decision to waive an EIA for the new Demerara River Crossing.
Citing other mishaps along the process, she observed that neither the EAB nor the EPA was able to respond to her question, as well as similar questions from the public, as to when the EPA had carried out stakeholder work and gathered data it was using to justify its decision to waive the EIA.
Mangal-Joly who is also a Geologist, said “the EAB must understand that its failure to address the relevant matter of when the EPA comes by information and provides reasons for the waivers of EIAs makes it complicit in the EPA’s actions to subvert the rule of law. An Environmental Protection Agency that openly subverts the very law it exists to uphold is a serious threat to our people and environment. An appeals body that is unable to function independently and impartially compounds this threat.”
Independence of EAB
“I have given the EPA and EAB the benefit of the doubt by engaging in due process with both bodies over the last year. Sadly, both bodies have given me every reason to believe that they are unable to act independently and apply the high standards of technical reasoning that the Environmental Protection Act requires for decision making. This cannot continue,” she contended.
The environmentalist noted too that the latest available report from the EPA was uploaded in 2018- four years ago.
Notably, at that time the entity’s organizational structure inks the EAB to the Executive Director in the EPA.
As such, the Geologist reasons, “how could the EAB act impartially in weighing the decisions of the EPA when it is subsumed under the operations of the EPA? How could the EAB be independent when all its members are government employees whose very livelihoods are vulnerable if they do not take decisions that please their seniors? What has prevented the Government of Guyana from appointing a balanced EAB that includes qualified civil society representation, academic, and private sector specialists? The Environmental Protection Act provides for up to a five-member EAB. If the Government of Guyana is genuinely committed to the rule of law, fairness, and transparency in the conduct of public affairs, it will act swiftly to ensure broader representation and an independent EAB.”

 

---

---