Dear Editor,
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) thanks you for the opportunity to respond to the letter published in the Stabroek News by a resident of Chateau Margot (‘Chateau Margot chicken farm still causing residents discomfort’ 19.11.09). The letter contains a number of questions which we would need to address in the context of the Environmental Protection Act No. 11 of 1996 under which the EPA is mandated to operate.
We would like to highlight to the letter writer and the general public that the EPA operates in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act No. 11 of 1996; the Environmental Protection Amendment Act, 2005; and the Environmental Protection Regulations, 2000. As a regulatory organization, the EPA has been able to define its processes and procedures, inclusive of timeframes necessary for carrying out its operational mandate.
The functions of the EPA include taking such steps as are necessary for the effective management of the natural environment so as to ensure conservation, protection and sustainable use of its natural resources, and promoting the participation of members of the public in the process of integrating environmental concerns in planning and development on a sustainable basis.
The EPA has an Environmental Permitting (Authorisation) Process which varies depending on the type of project, the potential environmental impacts or whether it is new or existing. As it relates to the issue of rearing poultry in residential areas, the person who is engaged in such activity would first need to seek the necessary approvals from the relevant authorities.
Normally, the Neighbourhood Democratic Council (NDC) is required to grant building and operational No-objection, and the Central Housing and Planning Authority (CH&PA) has the mandate to grant land-use planning permission. If the various permissions are not obtained then the relevant entities must exercise their authority as appropriate.
However, if the operation is of a large scale (more than five hundred (500) chickens), then the developer would need to apply to the EPA for Environmental Authorisation. It must be noted that when this application is received by the agency, the developer would need to submit the approval documents from the relevant agencies before permission can be granted by the EPA.
In accordance with Part IV of the act, all developers/investors of any project listed in the Fourth Schedule of the act or any other project which may significantly affect the environment must apply for, and obtain an Environmental Authorisation, before beginning the project.
Failure by a developer to fully comply with the recommendations of the agency can result in the agency issuing a Prohibition Notice under Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act, No 11 of 1996, with specific compliance requirements for such operation including:
* submission of the relevant permissions/approvals from the Neighbourhood Democratic Council and the Central Housing and Planning Authority;
* adhering to environmental friendly practices outlined by the EPA which are specific to the operation.
Please note, that the EPA had received complaints from residents in the community and the matter was investigated jointly with other relevant authorities. Given the scale and nature of the operation, the matter has been forwarded to the Central Housing and Planning Authority for its intervention for their determination on whether this poultry operation is suitably located at the present location, since zoning regulations and land use suitability fall under its jurisdiction.
Finally, for the benefit of the public, we wish to point out that in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1996, Section 19 (1) (a) – “a person shall not undertake an activity that causes or is likely to cause pollution of the environment, unless the person takes all reasonable and practical measures to prevent or minimize any resulting adverse effects. Any person who contravenes this provision of the Act shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to the penalty of a fine of not less than three thousand dollars nor more than seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars and imprisonment for one year.”
Yours faithfully,
Indarjit Ramdass
Executive Director
Environmental Protection Agency
