It was a letter published in this newspaper last week from Mr Shawn Johnson on behalf of other residents of Malgre Tout-Versailles which first drew wider public attention to the destruction of vast swathes of mangrove on the West Bank Demerara. The mangroves afforded natural protection to an area which is prone to flooding, and which has now become doubly vulnerable. Their removal is a preparatory measure for the building of a shore base facility by Tristar Incorporated that is to consist of a storage facility, a wharf and a jetty.
If the clearing of mangroves is a problem in its own right, this particular venture has an additional component since the company has apparently cleared far more mangroves than was initially agreed with the authorities.
Furthermore, the company has not built any sea defences in their place which would protect the nearby communities from flooding as they had also undertaken to do before being granted permission to proceed. It represents a lesson about the inadequacy of the various government agencies to make defensible decisions, and their lack of capacity to monitor what private entrepreneurs are actually doing on the ground and intervening when this does not conform to agreements. Finally, of course, it stands as a warning to Guyanese as to the potential environmental dangers the oil industry represents if we are not vigilant.
Mr Johnson recounted the details of the runaround he had received from the various agencies in relation to the issue, including the Environmental Protection Agency. “The EPA informed me that I would need to make a complaint with their complaints division,” he wrote. “When I tried to make the complaint, I was then told to discuss my issues with the Infrastructure Department. To date, I am unable to get any concrete information on the project from the EPA nor a copy of the Permit issued by the EPA.” Up to the end of last week Stabroek News too was unable to obtain a response from the EPA.
It is the understanding of this newspaper that approval for the construction project was held up last year by the EPA owing to its concerns over the clearing of mangroves. At that time, however, the agency’s head was Dr Vincent Adams, who was later dismissed, but who confirmed that the application had been made during his time. He said that his agency had met with the directors, and they had been informed that proper evaluations would have to be carried out, and approvals from every agency were required before they would be given the go-ahead.
It was from the National Agricultural Research and Extension Institute Mr Johnson learnt that approval for Tristar’s facility had been granted by the Sea Defence Board, whose Chairman, Brigadier (ret’d) Gary Beaton, told this newspaper in an interview on Thursday: “They [Tristar] are in breach of the guidelines we offered with our no objection. They have destroyed the sea defence without building one area, and they were expected to provide a work plan and schedule but that was not done.”
As for Minister Juan Edghill under whose ministry the Sea Defence Board falls, he too confirmed that the no-objection had been granted on the basis that a detailed proposal to ensure the sea defences would not be compromised was submitted. “The sea defence will have to be replaced. This was not a willy-nilly process; it was done thoroughly with wide discussions,” we quoted him as saying. However, in a significant comment he remarked that although he recognised that mangroves were important, development must not be stymied.
This ordering of priorities was also reflected in the response of Region Three Chairman Ishan Ayube when he was asked whether his council had any reservations over the project and the impact it would have on the river defences. “The Maritime Administration, the Sea Defence Board and other technical agencies have done their surveys and if they give permission it ought to be safe,” Mr Ayube said, adding that the council didn’t see the clearing of the mangroves as a burden to the region. The project should be regarded as a positive for the region, was his view, given its economic impact and ability to create jobs.
The communities were clearly not persuaded ‘development’ and the creation of more jobs justified the damage to or destruction of their properties and livelihoods by repeated flooding, and it does not appear that the authorities took much account of what the communities affected had to say. In addition, they also did not give them feedback on what the outcome of the consultations was. As we reported, this newspaper spoke to the Chairman of the Malgre Tout/Met-en-Meerzorg Neighbourhood Democratic Council Tennessee Vickerie who told us that in the course of the consultations the council had not only raised objections to the destruction of the mangroves, but had also relayed its concerns to the Central Housing and Planning Authority, among other agencies. As it was, it was still not clear to the council on what ground approval had been given to Tristar.
And as for what is to happen now, Brigadier (ret’d) Beaton said that the designs and plans of the company, ie the new river defences, would have to be evaluated to ensure that they were “engineering sound” and could withstand the challenges of rising sea levels. It might be noted that in the meantime residents of the area stand exposed without the mangroves and without any form of alternative cover from the inundations of the high tide. The Sea Defence Board head said he had summoned the company and hoped to meet Tristar’s principals as early as this week. The public would certainly like to know who the principals of Tristar are. Surely it is not a state secret. And they would also like to know why it is the Sea Defence Board did not step in to intervene when the developer started breaching the agreement.
As it is environmentalists have been critical of the initial decision to grant the no objection.
Mr Deopaul Somwaru, a volunteer with the group ‘A Fair Deal for Guyana’ has said that this sends the wrong message. “It shows that government is not serious about the protection of these plants and the environment,” he said. Referring to the many public education programmes which have seen groups highlighting the need for protecting mangroves, “here they are being destroyed.” In addition he added that along with the mangroves natural habitats and livelihoods were being eliminated, such as fishing.
Environmentalist Ms Annette Arjoons-Martins told this newspaper that “Even if a concretized structure is built to protect the residents from the rising sea levels, we have to understand that it does not have the same value and benefits mangroves have. Mangroves are regarded as a carbon sink and absorb five times the amount of carbon [as] greenheart and purpleheart forests. In addition to that, [they] foster a rich ecosystem and serve as a nursery for fishes and a habitat for birds.”
And she is also firm in the view that sanctions should be applied to Tristar. Her suggestion is that the developers should be required to replant the equivalent of two times the mangroves they destroyed. Acknowledging that it cannot be done in the location where the offence was committed, she proposes that they could fund NAREI’s restoration programme on the East Coast Demerara.
Whatever the outcome of the Sea Defence Board’s meeting with Tristar, it is clear that sanctions of some kind should be applied. If they are not, everyone will dismiss the government’s talk of a commitment to environmental concerns as so much hot air. As matters stand, mangroves are still a protected species and concerns have been expressed even before this episode that the oil and gas industry could be a threat to them. Those concerns have now been demonstrated to have real substance.
Last month NAREI, one of the agencies involved in this story, issued a release about the establishment of a mangrove monitoring platform. “Mangroves are considered Guyana’s natural sea defence and are essential in providing several eco-system services,” it read. “Studies have shown that mangroves provide about 5 to 10 times more carbon storage than the terrestrial forest. And with Guyana’s low carbon development trajectory, mangroves are pivotal in this regard.” Not on the West Bank, it seems.
