The efforts of the government, the Civil Defence Commission, related agencies and civil society groups in helping to relieve the deep and dangerous flooding across the country must be applauded and supported. No effort must be spared in supplying the basic needs of inundated residents, moving them to higher ground and protecting their health. Recovery after the flood has subsided will require longer-term assistance and planning for ravaged communities in the hinterland and along the coast.
Much of the flooding in the southern part of the country is directly attributable to exogenous factors such the rise of the Rio Branco in northern Brazil. Reports from Brazil said that on Friday the height of the Rio Branco in Caracaraí was 8.74 meters with the risk of overflowing as had occurred before. This would naturally impact on the flooding of connected rivers flowing through the Rupununi.
Further, for this week the Geological Survey of Brazil said that rains are forecast above the values typically observed in this period of the year, predominantly over the areas north of the basin. In 2011 Roraima in Brazil faced the worst flooding since the previous historic flood, which occurred in 1976: the level of the Rio Branco reached the level of 10.28 meters on June 8th that year. The previous high had been 9.8 metres.
Coastal flooding, particularly in the Mahaica, Mahaicony and Abary basins and on the Corentyne is more directly linked to the inefficiencies and incapacities of the primary and secondary drainage networks and management of reservoirs such as the East Demerara Water Conservancy.
Evidence continues to grow that anthropogenic-driven climate change is worsening flooding in these parts and though Guyana remains a veritable carbon sink it must make a concerted effort to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases even if such an effort is symbolic or minuscule in the larger quest to restrain global temperature rise.
As stated in the June 4th editorial in this newspaper, the government needs to commission a report on what this country can expect in terms of climate change which would encompass rising sea levels. In the meanwhile, the government must act sensibly and in full recognition that its actions must be fully consistent with avoiding deforestation, reducing emissions and converting as rapidly as possible to green fuels. The government talks a good talk but falls short in terms of action.
On Friday in a statement to commemorate World Environment Day which was observed on Saturday, June 5th, President Ali among other things said: “As we continue to protect our environment whilst expanding economic opportunities for our people, in this process, my Government will be guided by the revised Low Carbon Development Strategy (LCDS). The revised strategy will expand into environmental services, water resources management, climate resilience, biodiversity, and marine economy”.
He also stated: “My Government has established a national strategy for mangrove protection and restoration along our coastline and rivers, which builds on our existing work, such as the National Mangrove Management Plan and Restoration and Management Programmes initiated by previous PPP/C Governments”.
One wonders whether President Ali felt not the slightest qualm at the mentioning of mangroves after his government permitted the clandestine pillaging of a large swathe of these salt water-tolerant shrubs at Malgre Tout, West Demerara in the name of the construction of a shore base to service the inexorably spreading shadow of support services for the oil industry. There can be no justification for the ripping up of these mangroves – an environmental crime – and it will not be surprising if Guyana is cited regionally and internationally over this. There is yet to be any statement by the tongue-tied authorities over how Tristar was able to denude the area of mangroves without a full environmental and social impact assessment being done of its proposed project. The decision of the Sea Defence Board to permit a limited removal of mangroves by Tristar – which then far exceeded what was permitted – needs to be fully audited and justified. We restate that the stiffest penalty possible needs to be applied to Tristar and no project must embark on the premise of the removal of natural sea defence protection
It defies belief and common sense that Guyana can be engaged in contracting a loan from the Caribbean Development Bank for US$25m for river and sea defence resilience while unapologetically greenlighting the destruction of mangroves. It also makes nonsense of the European Union’s large grant funding for sea defences, shore zone management and mangrove afforestation.
Such inconsistencies in this government’s outlook speaks to fractured policy and the absence of an overall plan. Ten months may not have been enough to draft a master plan in this area considering the recent major development of the oil and gas industry but this is what is needed to make sense of the climate predicament the country faces and how decisions such as the gas-to-shore project and protection of mangrove forests factor into this.
The government also has to pay heed to the growing potency of the international campaign to drive down carbon emissions attributable to oil companies. The recent decision of a Dutch court to order expanded emission cuts for Royal Dutch Shell could lead to similar lawsuits against ExxonMobil. With activist hedge fund Engine No. 1 securing three seats on the ExxonMobil board in what has been seen as a monumental shake-up, the US oil company will face even greater pressure to curtail emissions attributable to it.
While Guyana has done next to nothing in relation to the toxic flaring of gas from the Liza-1 well which has significantly pushed up the country’s contributions to greenhouse gas emissions, ExxonMobil may down the road face even greater pressure to curb oil production in these parts. So whereas Guyana is yet to develop a depletion policy, one could be handed to it by default.
The tragic flooding that has gripped the country is an inflection point for the PPP/C administration to recognise the seriousness with which concerted planning must be done for flood management and how the environmental threats posed by the oil and gas industry in relation to climate change must be mitigated.
