Was the EAB hearing on the EIA waiver for the power plant fair???

Mar 26, 2023 News

---

By: Davina Bagot

Kaieteur News – The Environmental Assessment Board (EAB), just over a month old, on Wednesday heard appeals from citizens who objected to the waiver of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the 300 megawatt gas-fired power plant to be constructed at Wales, West Bank Demerara.

The meeting was hosted at the Cara Lodge in Georgetown even though there was a triple conflict of interest in the eyes of the appellants, who publicly stated their lack of confidence in the process.

The triple conflict of interest was not only due to the fact that three senior government officials were appointed to the Board, but also largely owing to the Chairman, Dr. Mahendar Sharma being the spouse of the company’s director that has applied for the Permit to build and operate the new power generation facility. In addition to his known title of Head of the Guyana Energy Agency (GEA), he is also a Director on the Guyana Power and Light Inc Board, the company that will benefit from the new power plant.

Despite these concerns the public hearing was held to assess the concerns of the appellants, in accordance with Section 18 of the Environmental Protection Act; but was the process fair?

The public hearing commenced at 17:05h, a mere five minutes after its scheduled time; given the usual disregard for punctuality, the EAB must be given a point here in my view! I will allow readers to assess the rest for themselves.

One of the first things to note is the fact there was no structure to the hearing communicated to the appellants, prior to the commencement of the meeting, meaning citizens who objected to the EIA waiver were clueless as to what was expected of them, what time allotment would be given for their presentations and what mechanisms would be in place for their concerns to be addressed.

This was duly communicated to the EAB by one of the citizens, Elizabeth Deane-Hughes during the start of her presentation.

The EAB Chairman had said each presenter [appellants, project proponent and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] would be allotted 20 minutes to present, after which the Board would seek clarity on issues they find fit.

None of the presentations adhered to this plan. The appellants said during the meeting that the reason for this could be blamed on the lack of a communicated protocol for the day’s proceeding. Essentially, what should have been at least an hour or hour and a half meeting, evolved into an almost five hours long conversation- conversation since there was a constant back and forth between presenters and the audience, mainly when the EPA and the Project Head, Winston Brassington took to the floor with their presentations.

The floor was flooded with questions. The level of doubt, uncertainty and lack of confidence in the project’s safety was boiling over in the room; so heavy with division that the use of profanities even slipped through.

Be that as it may, the EAB Chairman, though opposed to the back and forth between the parties, allowed for a level of discourse to take place, especially since he was cautioned by Deane-Hughes that the unravelling events were inevitable, as Brassington left much unanswered.

What did Brassington present?

A presentation from Brassington and the government in particular on this subject (Gas-to-Energy) almost always requires and duly grasps the attention of Guyanese, so much so that a pin could be heard dropping to the floor if there was a pause for breath.

The intent and hunger for information on this project is almost poisoning. Poisoning, since the lack of details may very well be the reason for citizen’s unacceptance.

Brassington shared an overview of the GTE project just after the appellants made their case. His presentation was frequently interrupted with questions and comments, to which he often responded, when allowed by the EAB. The Board was insisting that the hearing was to assess concerns regarding the waiver of an EIA for the power plant.

Nonetheless, Brassington gave an outline of the three-part project which he says will cut electricity costs by 50 percent. There were hardly any points from Brassington to prove an EIA for this project would not be required.

His environmental points were founded on a study conducted in 2019, which said carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced. This study was not referenced by the EPA in its decision to waive the EIA. Brassington was courteous and took time to respond to concerns regarding an explosion as was articulated in another article. See link attached. https://www.kaieteurnewsonline.com/2023/03/24/wales-gas-plant-hearing-met-with-fierce-protest-by-residents/

In the meantime, EPA took the spot light just after 20:00hrs (8pm) that evening to defend its decision to exempt the power plant from an EIA. The Executive Director, Kemraj Parsram provided comments before handing over to a technical officer to explain the decision.

Parsram’s presentation was subjected to heckling, not only by the appellants but by Member of Parliament, David Patterson. The Director also responded to the queries as they were brough up.

Notably, as the final presenter for the evening, the EPA introduced new information pertaining to its decision. These facts should have been presented in the inception when the decision was announced to waive the study. This may have prevented the hearing from occurring in the first place as citizens may have had a greater appreciation for the studies conducted prior.

Studies were however brought to the attention of the appellants that were reportedly conducted to ensure the project’s safety.

It was during the question-and-answer segment that EAB Board member, Mr. Joslyn McKenzie (also Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Natural Resources), queried whether one of the appellants was aware that these studies were conducted and available to the public.

Danuta Radzik responded explaining, “What was presented to us for this hearing was an exemption from that EIA for the power plant because cumulatively these questions have been answered…if then this hearing was about all those documents they should have been in the notice and should have been clear that this would have been part of the discussion, rationalization and so on for this hearing, that was not there.”

This response caused McKenzie to scale back.

It was also evident that the format of the public hearing restricted the full participation of Guyanese citizens. It was requested prior to the meeting that mechanisms be put in place for the session to allow the Diaspora and Guyanese in far-flung communities to participate, but this was not consented to by the Board. Chairman, Dr, Sharma in a brief conversation after the event, explained that the hearing was held in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act.

Interestingly, the EPA used the Local Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS) to endorse the need for the gas-fired power plant to the public. “The LCDS is a framework intended to map the path of a new growth trajectory in a non-polluting way,” as was defined by the innovator, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo.

EPA boss, Mr. Parsram explained that the natural gas will be used as a transition to cleaner energy in the future. This move may come under fire by citizens as improper on the part of the regulator for acting as a defender of the project, rather than maintain neutrality under the circumstances of the day. The EPA’s role according to the law is clearly not to justify the necessity of a project, but rather to assess impacts and ascertain whether it can be operated safely in the environment without causing human health problems.

---

• Cara Lodge, Dr. Mahendar Sharma, Environmental Assessment Board (EAB), Georgetown, Guyana Energy Agency (GEA)

---