Latest update November 2nd, 2026 10:20 AM
Latest News
- Outrage over death of man in police custody
- Authorities silent for days after diver dies during MV Barima salvage operation
- Family fears for opposition leader’s safety, calls for his release
- Trump White House maps path to govern without Congress if Democrats win
- Indigenous leaders condemn exclusion from biodiversity talks, demand land rights
EPA performs independent regulatory functions
Dear Editor
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides the following statement in response to a letter from Ms. Melinda Janki (dated May 30, 2025), which has been shared with local media entities.
1. The EPA, as the body responsible for the management, conservation, protection, and improvement of Guyanas natural environment, is required to ensure that any developmental activity, which may have an effect on the environment, is assessed before such activity commences.
2. As an Agency of the Government of Guyana, the EPA only approves a project once the Environmental Assessment Board (EAB) indicates that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is acceptable. This means that it is only the EAB that can indicate that an EIA is acceptable, thereby triggering the EPAs decision whether or not to approve a project.
3. The EPA performs independent regulatory functions, and its decision that an EIA is required has nothing to do with the Governments approval. Nor does it suggest that the EPA, in and of itself, is approving a project.
4. The EIA is essentially an information-gathering and planning tool, which then helps to inform the EPA in its decision-making process in relation to whether to grant an environmental authorisation for a proposed project.
5. With reference to the 7th Oil Project (Hammerhead Petroleum Development and Production) of ExxonMobil Guyana Limited (EMGL), the EIA process is still ongoing.
6. The EPA, as part of the statutory process for the EIA set out in Section 11 of the Environmental Protection Act Cap 20:05 referenced above, allows for public input within a 60-day period.
7. The EIA was submitted to the EPA by EMGL and its consultants and, thereafter, a notice was published earlier in 2025, in the local media and on the EPAs website, informing members of the public that as per Section 11(10) of the Environmental Protection Act, they have 60 days within which to submit comments on the EIA.
8. This statutory 60-day period has already ended. Clearly, the learned Ms. Janki, as any other member of the public, would know that, by law, her comments should have been sent by this date. Despite this, the EPA has taken note of the views expressed in her letter.
9. EPA is currently reviewing the EIA and, in this process, will consider all comments received during the statutory 60-day period. In addition, the EPA is seeking an independent review of the EIA by competent and experienced international experts.
10. As is required by the Environmental Protection Act, the EPA will submit the EIA to the EAB for review and recommendations to the EPA on whether the EIA is acceptable.
11. Based on its own review, the independent review, and the EABs recommendation, the EPA will make a decision whether to grant an Environmental Permit for the project.
12. The EIA process, as set out in Section 11 of the Environmental Protection Act, is therefore not complete as yet. In this regard, the EPA is unsure why Ms. Janki appears to be suggesting that the EPA has approved the project.
Regards
Communications Department
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
